Skip to main content

Collingwood Park vs Ripley

Property investment comparison - Collingwood Park, QLD 4301 vs Ripley, QLD 4306

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Collingwood Park wins 4, Ripley wins 0. 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.

MetricCollingwood ParkRipley
Median house price$900K$900K
Median unit price$615K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.80%-
Gross rental yield (units)4.20%3.80%
1-year house growth+19.2%+16.6%
3-year house growth+55.9%+41.1%
Vacancy rate2.1%2.8%
Population9,2464,288

Collingwood Park vs Ripley: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $900K in Collingwood Park and $900K in Ripley.

Over the past year house prices moved +19.2% in Collingwood Park and +16.6% in Ripley, so recent momentum favours Collingwood Park, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Collingwood Park houses are +55.9% and Ripley houses +41.1%, so Collingwood Park has compounded faster than Ripley over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 2.1% in Collingwood Park and 2.8% in Ripley, so landlords in Collingwood Park face less competition for tenants.

Collingwood Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 9,246 against 4,288, roughly 2.2 times the size of Ripley; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Collingwood Park for recent price momentum, Collingwood Park 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