Cowes vs King Valley
Property investment comparison - Cowes, VIC 3922 vs King Valley, VIC 3678
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cowes wins 1, King Valley 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 | Cowes | King Valley |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $700K | $700K |
| Median unit price | $555K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.79% | 5.54% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | -2.1% | - |
| 3-year house growth | -12.5% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.5% | 3.2% |
| Population | 6,593 | 87 |
Cowes vs King Valley: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $700K in Cowes and $700K in King Valley.
On cash flow, King Valley leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.54%, compared with 3.79% in Cowes, a gap of 1.75 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Cowes and 3.2% in King Valley, so landlords in Cowes face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Cowes is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,593 against 87, roughly 76 times the size of King Valley; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: King Valley for rental income, Cowes 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