Como vs West End
Property investment comparison - Como, QLD 4571 vs West End, QLD 4101
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Como wins 1, West End 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 | Como | West End |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.4M | $1.4M |
| Median unit price | - | $950K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.99% | 3.39% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +19.2% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +0.9% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 1.1% |
| Population | 54 | 14,730 |
Como vs West End: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.4M in Como and $1.4M in West End, so Como is the cheaper entry point.
On cash flow, West End leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.39%, compared with 2.99% in Como, a gap of 0.40 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.1% in West End and 2.6% in Como, so landlords in West End face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
West End is the bigger suburb, with a population of 14,730 against 54, roughly 273 times the size of Como; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: West End for rental income, Como for a lower purchase price, West End 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