Skip to main content

Churchill vs Mount Lonarch

Property investment comparison - Churchill, VIC 3842 vs Mount Lonarch, VIC 3377

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Churchill wins 1, Mount Lonarch wins 4. 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.

MetricChurchillMount Lonarch
Median house price$460K$455K
Median unit price$430K$325K
Gross rental yield (houses)5.08%4.57%
Gross rental yield (units)3.45%6.85%
1-year house growth+17.9%-
3-year house growth+27.7%-
Vacancy rate2.3%1.5%
Population4,92444

Churchill vs Mount Lonarch: what the numbers say

The median house price is $460K in Churchill and $455K in Mount Lonarch, so Mount Lonarch is the cheaper entry point, with Churchill houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Churchill sits at a median of $430K against $325K in Mount Lonarch, which makes Mount Lonarch the more affordable unit market and Churchill the pricier one.

On cash flow, Churchill leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.08%, compared with 4.57% in Mount Lonarch, a gap of 0.51 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Mount Lonarch and 2.3% in Churchill, so landlords in Mount Lonarch face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Churchill is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,924 against 44, roughly 112 times the size of Mount Lonarch; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Churchill for rental income, Mount Lonarch for a lower purchase price, Mount Lonarch 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
Churchill vs Mount Lonarch: Suburb Comparison 2026