Chelsea vs Coburg North
Property investment comparison - Chelsea, VIC 3196 vs Coburg North, VIC 3058
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Chelsea wins 2, Coburg North wins 3. The better choice depends on whether you're optimising for cash flow, growth, affordability, or liquidity, the table below highlights the winner on each metric.
| Metric | Chelsea | Coburg North |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | $745K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.25% | 3.20% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.02% | 4.67% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.1%estimate | -0.2%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.3% | 1.3% |
| Population | 8,347 | 8,327 |
Chelsea vs Coburg North: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.1M in Chelsea and $1.1M in Coburg North, so Coburg North is the cheaper entry point, with Chelsea houses about 1% dearer.
Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 3.25% in Chelsea and 3.20% in Coburg North, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.
Over the past year house prices moved +8.1% in Chelsea (an estimate) and -0.2% in Coburg North (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Chelsea, while Coburg North went backwards.
Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 1.3%.
Chelsea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,347 against 8,327, larger than Coburg North; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Coburg North for a lower purchase price, Chelsea for recent price momentum. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison