Skip to main content

Chelsea vs Mount Lonarch

Property investment comparison - Chelsea, VIC 3196 vs Mount Lonarch, VIC 3468

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Chelsea wins 2, Mount Lonarch 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.

MetricChelseaMount Lonarch
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price$745K$95K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.25%1.70%
Gross rental yield (units)4.02%9.45%
1-year house growth+8.1%estimate-
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.3%4.7%
Population8,34744

Chelsea vs Mount Lonarch: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.1M in Chelsea and $1.1M in Mount Lonarch, so Mount Lonarch is the cheaper entry point, with Chelsea houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Chelsea sits at a median of $745K against $95K in Mount Lonarch, which makes Mount Lonarch the more affordable unit market and Chelsea the pricier one.

On cash flow, Chelsea leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.25%, compared with 1.70% in Mount Lonarch, a gap of 1.55 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Chelsea and 4.7% in Mount Lonarch, so landlords in Chelsea face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Chelsea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,347 against 44, roughly 190 times the size of Mount Lonarch; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Chelsea for rental income, Mount Lonarch for a lower purchase price, Chelsea for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison