Cotton Tree vs Ferny Hills
Property investment comparison - Cotton Tree, QLD 4558 vs Ferny Hills, QLD 4055
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cotton Tree wins 2, Ferny Hills 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.
| Metric | Cotton Tree | Ferny Hills |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | $1.2M |
| Median unit price | $975K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.59% | 3.30% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.16% | 4.33% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +13.7% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +39.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 1.6% |
| Population | 25,797 | 8,726 |
Cotton Tree vs Ferny Hills: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.2M in Cotton Tree and $1.2M in Ferny Hills, so Ferny Hills is the cheaper entry point.
On cash flow, Cotton Tree leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.59%, compared with 3.30% in Ferny Hills, a gap of 0.29 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Cotton Tree and 1.6% in Ferny Hills, so landlords in Cotton Tree face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Cotton Tree is the bigger suburb, with a population of 25,797 against 8,726, roughly 3.0 times the size of Ferny Hills; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Cotton Tree for rental income, Ferny Hills for a lower purchase price, Cotton Tree 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