Earlville vs Forest Hill

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $745K in Earlville and $745K in Forest Hill.

For units, Earlville sits at a median of $370K against $525K in Forest Hill, which makes Earlville the more affordable unit market and Forest Hill the pricier one.

On cash flow, Earlville leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.14%, compared with 3.77% in Forest Hill, a gap of 1.37 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +13.3% in Earlville and +16.4% in Forest Hill, so recent momentum favours Forest Hill, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Earlville houses are +31.2% and Forest Hill houses +83.8%, so Forest Hill has compounded faster than Earlville over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Earlville and 0.6% in Forest Hill, so landlords in Earlville face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Earlville is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,200 against 935, roughly 4.5 times the size of Forest Hill; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Earlville for rental income, Forest Hill for recent price momentum, Earlville for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.