Cosgrove vs McKenzie Hill
Property investment comparison - Cosgrove, VIC 3631 vs McKenzie Hill, VIC 3451
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cosgrove wins 2, McKenzie Hill 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.
| Metric | Cosgrove | McKenzie Hill |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $740K | $745K |
| Median unit price | - | $510K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 3.58% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.63% |
| 1-year house growth | - | -1.9%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.4% | 3.5% |
| Population | 50 | 775 |
Cosgrove vs McKenzie Hill: what the numbers say
The median house price is $740K in Cosgrove and $745K in McKenzie Hill, so Cosgrove is the cheaper entry point, with McKenzie Hill houses about 1% dearer.
Rental vacancy is 1.4% in Cosgrove and 3.5% in McKenzie Hill, so landlords in Cosgrove face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
McKenzie Hill is the bigger suburb, with a population of 775 against 50, roughly 16 times the size of Cosgrove; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Cosgrove for a lower purchase price, 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
- 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