Cranley vs Smithfield
Property investment comparison - Cranley, QLD 4350 vs Smithfield, QLD 4878
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cranley wins 2, Smithfield 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 | Cranley | Smithfield |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $845K | $845K |
| Median unit price | - | $410K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.80% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.70% | 7.83% |
| 1-year house growth | +20.3%estimate | +15.0% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +35.6% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 1.2% |
| Population | 2,281 | 6,664 |
Cranley vs Smithfield: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $845K in Cranley and $845K in Smithfield.
Over the past year house prices moved +20.3% in Cranley (an estimate) and +15.0% in Smithfield, so recent momentum favours Cranley, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Cranley and 1.2% in Smithfield, so landlords in Cranley face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Smithfield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,664 against 2,281, roughly 2.9 times the size of Cranley; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Cranley for recent price momentum, Cranley 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