Skip to main content

Chelsea vs Tylden

Property investment comparison - Chelsea, VIC 3196 vs Tylden, VIC 3444

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Chelsea wins 3, Tylden wins 2. 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.

MetricChelseaTylden
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price$745K$660K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.25%2.12%
Gross rental yield (units)4.02%3.72%
1-year house growth+8.1%estimate-
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.3%2.8%
Population8,347645

Chelsea vs Tylden: what the numbers say

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

For units, Chelsea sits at a median of $745K against $660K in Tylden, which makes Tylden 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 2.12% in Tylden, a gap of 1.13 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Chelsea and 2.8% in Tylden, 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 645, roughly 13 times the size of Tylden; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Chelsea for rental income, Tylden 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