Skip to main content

Cosgrove vs Machans Beach

Property investment comparison - Cosgrove, QLD 4818 vs Machans Beach, QLD 4878

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cosgrove wins 2, Machans Beach 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.

MetricCosgroveMachans Beach
Median house price$685K$685K
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)4.50%4.44%
Gross rental yield (units)-5.61%
1-year house growth+16.2%+17.5%estimate
3-year house growth+69.8%-
Vacancy rate1.5%2.1%
Population665943

Cosgrove vs Machans Beach: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $685K in Cosgrove and $685K in Machans Beach.

On cash flow, Cosgrove leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.50%, compared with 4.44% in Machans Beach, a gap of 0.06 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +16.2% in Cosgrove and +17.5% in Machans Beach (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Machans Beach, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Cosgrove and 2.1% in Machans Beach, so landlords in Cosgrove face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Machans Beach is the bigger suburb, with a population of 943 against 665, larger than Cosgrove; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Cosgrove for rental income, Machans Beach for recent price momentum, Cosgrove 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