Dixie vs Mulgrave
Property investment comparison - Dixie, VIC 3265 vs Mulgrave, VIC 3170
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Dixie wins 0, Mulgrave 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 | Dixie | Mulgrave |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | - | $850K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.05% | 3.14% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +2.3% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +14.7% |
| Vacancy rate | 4.0% | 1.9% |
| Population | 148 | 19,889 |
Dixie vs Mulgrave: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.1M in Dixie and $1.1M in Mulgrave.
On cash flow, Mulgrave leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.14%, compared with 2.05% in Dixie, a gap of 1.09 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Mulgrave and 4.0% in Dixie, so landlords in Mulgrave face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Mulgrave is the bigger suburb, with a population of 19,889 against 148, roughly 134 times the size of Dixie; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Mulgrave for rental income, Mulgrave 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