Cuckoo vs Latrobe
Property investment comparison - Cuckoo, TAS 7260 vs Latrobe, TAS 7307
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cuckoo wins 0, Latrobe 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 | Cuckoo | Latrobe |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $675K | $675K |
| Median unit price | - | $485K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.39% | 4.55% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.98% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +12.2% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +25.6% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.3% | 1.1% |
| Population | 44 | 5,030 |
Cuckoo vs Latrobe: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $675K in Cuckoo and $675K in Latrobe.
On cash flow, Latrobe leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.55%, compared with 3.39% in Cuckoo, a gap of 1.16 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Latrobe and 1.3% in Cuckoo, so landlords in Latrobe face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Latrobe is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,030 against 44, roughly 114 times the size of Cuckoo; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Latrobe for rental income, Latrobe 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