Skip to main content

Clinton vs Rasmussen

Property investment comparison - Clinton, QLD 4680 vs Rasmussen, QLD 4815

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Clinton wins 1, Rasmussen wins 3. 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.

MetricClintonRasmussen
Median house price$600K$600K
Median unit price$455K-
Gross rental yield (houses)4.83%4.80%
Gross rental yield (units)4.56%-
1-year house growth+14.2%+17.7%
3-year house growth+59.9%+82.7%
Vacancy rate1.4%1.3%
Population6,1704,669

Clinton vs Rasmussen: what the numbers say

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

Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 4.83% in Clinton and 4.80% in Rasmussen, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.2% in Clinton and +17.7% in Rasmussen, so recent momentum favours Rasmussen, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Clinton houses are +59.9% and Rasmussen houses +82.7%, so Rasmussen has compounded faster than Clinton over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Rasmussen and 1.4% in Clinton, so landlords in Rasmussen 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 4,669, larger than Rasmussen; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Rasmussen for recent price momentum, Rasmussen 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
Clinton vs Rasmussen: Property Investment Comparison (2026)