Clyde vs Lara
Property investment comparison - Clyde, VIC 3978 vs Lara, VIC 3212
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Clyde wins 1, Lara 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 | Clyde | Lara |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $730K | $730K |
| Median unit price | $560K | $560K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.30% | 4.10% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.70% |
| 1-year house growth | +5.0% | +6.8%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | +6.4% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 4.0% | 1.7% |
| Population | 11,177 | 19,014 |
Clyde vs Lara: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $730K in Clyde and $730K in Lara.
On cash flow, Clyde leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.30%, compared with 4.10% in Lara, a gap of 0.20 percentage points.
Over the past year house prices moved +5.0% in Clyde and +6.8% in Lara (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Lara, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.7% in Lara and 4.0% in Clyde, so landlords in Lara face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lara is the bigger suburb, with a population of 19,014 against 11,177, larger than Clyde; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Clyde for rental income, Lara for recent price momentum, Lara 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