Docker vs Emerald
Property investment comparison - Docker, VIC 3678 vs Emerald, VIC 3782
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Docker wins 2, Emerald 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 | Docker | Emerald |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $975K | $980K |
| Median unit price | $445K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.93% | 3.39% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.41% | 3.97% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +2.0% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +7.0% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.0% | 1.9% |
| Population | 106 | 5,890 |
Docker vs Emerald: what the numbers say
The median house price is $975K in Docker and $980K in Emerald, so Docker is the cheaper entry point, with Emerald houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Docker leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.93%, compared with 3.39% in Emerald, a gap of 0.54 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Emerald and 2.0% in Docker, so landlords in Emerald face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Emerald is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,890 against 106, roughly 56 times the size of Docker; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Docker for rental income, Docker for a lower purchase price, Emerald 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