Deagon vs Forest Glen
Property investment comparison - Deagon, QLD 4017 vs Forest Glen, QLD 4556
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Deagon wins 3, Forest Glen 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 | Deagon | Forest Glen |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | $340K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.24% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 6.04% | 4.82% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +11.9% |
| 3-year house growth | +45.7% | +18.1% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 0.6% |
| Population | 3,773 | 1,657 |
Deagon vs Forest Glen: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.1M in Deagon and $1.1M in Forest Glen, so Deagon is the cheaper entry point.
Looking back three years, Deagon houses are +45.7% and Forest Glen houses +18.1%, so Deagon has compounded faster than Forest Glen over the longer window.
Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Forest Glen and 0.8% in Deagon, so landlords in Forest Glen face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Deagon is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,773 against 1,657, roughly 2.3 times the size of Forest Glen; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Deagon for a lower purchase price, Forest Glen 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