Skip to main content

Clinton vs Norville

Property investment comparison - Clinton, QLD 4680 vs Norville, QLD 4670

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Clinton wins 0, Norville 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.

MetricClintonNorville
Median house price$600K$600K
Median unit price$455K-
Gross rental yield (houses)4.83%5.16%
Gross rental yield (units)4.56%4.92%
1-year house growth+14.2%+16.0%estimate
3-year house growth+59.9%-
Vacancy rate1.4%0.9%
Population6,1702,476

Clinton vs Norville: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $600K in Clinton and $600K in Norville.

On cash flow, Norville leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.16%, compared with 4.83% in Clinton, a gap of 0.33 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.2% in Clinton and +16.0% in Norville (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Norville, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Norville and 1.4% in Clinton, so landlords in Norville face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Clinton is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,170 against 2,476, roughly 2.5 times the size of Norville; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Norville for rental income, Norville for recent price momentum, Norville 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