Earlville vs Shaw

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

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

On cash flow, Earlville leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.14%, compared with 4.10% in Shaw, a gap of 1.04 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +13.3% in Earlville and +15.8% in Shaw, so recent momentum favours Shaw, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Earlville houses are +31.2% and Shaw houses +70.3%, so Shaw has compounded faster than Earlville over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Earlville and 0.7% in Shaw, 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 760, roughly 6 times the size of Shaw; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Earlville for rental income, Shaw 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.