Clarinda vs Newfield
Property investment comparison - Clarinda, VIC 3169 vs Newfield, VIC 3268
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Clarinda wins 3, Newfield 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.
| Metric | Clarinda | Newfield |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | $825K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.22% | 2.21% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | -3.1% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +10.5% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.1% | 2.7% |
| Population | 7,441 | 59 |
Clarinda vs Newfield: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.1M in Clarinda and $1.1M in Newfield, so Clarinda is the cheaper entry point.
On cash flow, Clarinda leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.22%, compared with 2.21% in Newfield, a gap of 1.01 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Clarinda and 2.7% in Newfield, so landlords in Clarinda face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Clarinda is the bigger suburb, with a population of 7,441 against 59, roughly 126 times the size of Newfield; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Clarinda for rental income, Clarinda for a lower purchase price, Clarinda for the tighter rental market. 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