Skip to main content

Clarkefield vs Thornbury

Property investment comparison - Clarkefield, VIC 3430 vs Thornbury, VIC 3071

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Clarkefield wins 0, Thornbury 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.

MetricClarkefieldThornbury
Median house price$1.5M$1.5M
Median unit price$940K$715K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.11%2.81%
Gross rental yield (units)3.70%4.55%
1-year house growth-+3.8%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate4.7%1.4%
Population30319,005

Clarkefield vs Thornbury: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.5M in Clarkefield and $1.5M in Thornbury.

For units, Clarkefield sits at a median of $940K against $715K in Thornbury, which makes Thornbury the more affordable unit market and Clarkefield the pricier one.

On cash flow, Thornbury leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.81%, compared with 2.11% in Clarkefield, a gap of 0.70 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.4% in Thornbury and 4.7% in Clarkefield, so landlords in Thornbury face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Thornbury is the bigger suburb, with a population of 19,005 against 303, roughly 63 times the size of Clarkefield; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Thornbury for rental income, Thornbury 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