Coochin Creek vs Fitzgibbon
Property investment comparison - Coochin Creek, QLD 4519 vs Fitzgibbon, QLD 4018
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Coochin Creek wins 1, Fitzgibbon 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.
| Metric | Coochin Creek | Fitzgibbon |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $955K | $955K |
| Median unit price | - | $785K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.17% | 3.70% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 3.96% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +15.1% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +46.4% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.3% | 1.0% |
| Population | 76 | 6,296 |
Coochin Creek vs Fitzgibbon: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $955K in Coochin Creek and $955K in Fitzgibbon.
On cash flow, Fitzgibbon leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.70%, compared with 2.17% in Coochin Creek, a gap of 1.53 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Coochin Creek and 1.0% in Fitzgibbon, so landlords in Coochin Creek face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Fitzgibbon is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,296 against 76, roughly 83 times the size of Coochin Creek; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Fitzgibbon for rental income, Coochin Creek 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