Churchill vs Rubicon
Property investment comparison - Churchill, VIC 3842 vs Rubicon, VIC 3712
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Churchill wins 2, Rubicon 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.
| Metric | Churchill | Rubicon |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $460K | $470K |
| Median unit price | $430K | $195K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.08% | 4.21% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.45% | 4.19% |
| 1-year house growth | +17.9% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +27.7% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.3% | - |
| Population | 4,924 | 44 |
Churchill vs Rubicon: what the numbers say
The median house price is $460K in Churchill and $470K in Rubicon, so Churchill is the cheaper entry point, with Rubicon houses about 2% dearer.
For units, Churchill sits at a median of $430K against $195K in Rubicon, which makes Rubicon 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 4.21% in Rubicon, a gap of 0.87 percentage points.
Churchill is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,924 against 44, roughly 112 times the size of Rubicon; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Churchill for rental income, Churchill for a lower purchase price. 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