Skip to main content

Chelsea vs Tarrengower

Property investment comparison - Chelsea, VIC 3196 vs Tarrengower, VIC 3463

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Chelsea wins 5, Tarrengower wins 0. 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.

MetricChelseaTarrengower
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price$745K$825K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.25%2.49%
Gross rental yield (units)4.02%1.86%
1-year house growth+8.1%estimate-
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.3%3.5%
Population8,34756

Chelsea vs Tarrengower: what the numbers say

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

For units, Chelsea sits at a median of $745K against $825K in Tarrengower, which makes Chelsea the more affordable unit market and Tarrengower the pricier one.

On cash flow, Chelsea leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.25%, compared with 2.49% in Tarrengower, a gap of 0.76 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Chelsea and 3.5% in Tarrengower, 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 56, roughly 149 times the size of Tarrengower; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Chelsea for rental income, Chelsea 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