Cranbourne vs Greta
Property investment comparison - Cranbourne, VIC 3977 vs Greta, VIC 3675
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cranbourne wins 1, Greta 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 | Cranbourne | Greta |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $720K | $720K |
| Median unit price | $540K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.97% | 3.22% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.81% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +6.4% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +9.9% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | - |
| Population | 21,281 | 86 |
Cranbourne vs Greta: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $720K in Cranbourne and $720K in Greta.
On cash flow, Cranbourne leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.97%, compared with 3.22% in Greta, a gap of 0.75 percentage points.
Cranbourne is the bigger suburb, with a population of 21,281 against 86, roughly 247 times the size of Greta; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Cranbourne for rental income. 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