Delacombe vs Patho
Property investment comparison - Delacombe, VIC 3356 vs Patho, VIC 3564
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Delacombe wins 0, Patho 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 | Delacombe | Patho |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $600K | $600K |
| Median unit price | - | $455K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.84% | 5.17% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.65% |
| 1-year house growth | +13.8% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +12.9% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| Population | 5,408 | 138 |
Delacombe vs Patho: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $600K in Delacombe and $600K in Patho.
On cash flow, Patho leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.17%, compared with 3.84% in Delacombe, a gap of 1.33 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.2% in Patho and 0.6% in Delacombe, so landlords in Patho face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Delacombe is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,408 against 138, roughly 39 times the size of Patho; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Patho for rental income, Patho 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