Skip to main content

Como vs Parkerville

Property investment comparison - Como, WA 6152 vs Parkerville, WA 6081

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Como wins 4, Parkerville wins 1. 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.

MetricComoParkerville
Median house price$1.5M$1.5M
Median unit price$815K$695K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.95%2.84%
Gross rental yield (units)4.47%1.95%
1-year house growth+13.7%estimate-
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate0.7%1.4%
Population14,7862,432

Como vs Parkerville: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.5M in Como and $1.5M in Parkerville, so Como is the cheaper entry point, with Parkerville houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Como sits at a median of $815K against $695K in Parkerville, which makes Parkerville the more affordable unit market and Como the pricier one.

On cash flow, Como leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.95%, compared with 2.84% in Parkerville, a gap of 0.11 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Como and 1.4% in Parkerville, so landlords in Como face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Como is the bigger suburb, with a population of 14,786 against 2,432, roughly 6 times the size of Parkerville; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Como for rental income, Como for a lower purchase price, Como 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