Skip to main content

Cotswold Hills vs Oakhurst

Property investment comparison - Cotswold Hills, QLD 4350 vs Oakhurst, QLD 4650

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cotswold Hills wins 2, Oakhurst 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.

MetricCotswold HillsOakhurst
Median house price$880K$880K
Median unit price-$555K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.60%3.23%
Gross rental yield (units)3.81%3.94%
1-year house growth+14.6%estimate+13.4%
3-year house growth-+34.6%
Vacancy rate8.9%3.5%
Population1,6201,717

Cotswold Hills vs Oakhurst: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $880K in Cotswold Hills and $880K in Oakhurst.

On cash flow, Cotswold Hills leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.60%, compared with 3.23% in Oakhurst, a gap of 0.37 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.6% in Cotswold Hills (an estimate) and +13.4% in Oakhurst, so recent momentum favours Cotswold Hills, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 3.5% in Oakhurst and 8.9% in Cotswold Hills, so landlords in Oakhurst face less competition for tenants.

Oakhurst is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,717 against 1,620, larger than Cotswold Hills; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Cotswold Hills for rental income, Cotswold Hills for recent price momentum, Oakhurst 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