Earlville vs Muirlea
Property investment comparison - Earlville, QLD 4870 vs Muirlea, QLD 4306
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Earlville wins 1, Muirlea 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 | Earlville | Muirlea |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $745K | $745K |
| Median unit price | $370K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.14% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 6.20% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +13.3% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +31.2% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.4% | 1.5% |
| Population | 4,200 | 174 |
Earlville vs Muirlea: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $745K in Earlville and $745K in Muirlea.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Earlville and 1.5% in Muirlea, 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 174, roughly 24 times the size of Muirlea; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Earlville 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