Earlston vs Stratford
Property investment comparison - Earlston, VIC 3669 vs Stratford, VIC 3862
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Earlston wins 2, Stratford wins 0. 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 | Earlston | Stratford |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $585K | $585K |
| Median unit price | - | $355K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.38% | 4.90% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.25% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +9.7% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +13.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 1.5% |
| Population | 82 | 2,980 |
Earlston vs Stratford: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $585K in Earlston and $585K in Stratford.
On cash flow, Earlston leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.38%, compared with 4.90% in Stratford, a gap of 0.48 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Earlston and 1.5% in Stratford, so landlords in Earlston face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Stratford is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,980 against 82, roughly 36 times the size of Earlston; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Earlston for rental income, Earlston 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