Codrington vs Maffra
Property investment comparison - Codrington, VIC 3285 vs Maffra, VIC 3860
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Codrington wins 1, Maffra 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 | Codrington | Maffra |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $505K | $500K |
| Median unit price | - | $360K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.93% | 4.98% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +12.5% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +10.6% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.4% | 1.5% |
| Population | 37 | 5,384 |
Codrington vs Maffra: what the numbers say
The median house price is $505K in Codrington and $500K in Maffra, so Maffra is the cheaper entry point, with Codrington houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Codrington leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.93%, compared with 4.98% in Maffra, a gap of 0.95 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Maffra and 2.4% in Codrington, so landlords in Maffra face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Maffra is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,384 against 37, roughly 146 times the size of Codrington; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Codrington for rental income, Maffra for a lower purchase price, Maffra 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