East Ipswich vs Mount Urah
Property investment comparison - East Ipswich, QLD 4305 vs Mount Urah, QLD 4650
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: East Ipswich wins 2, Mount Urah 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 | East Ipswich | Mount Urah |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $740K | $740K |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.90% | 3.38% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.13% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +17.4%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.4% | 12.5% |
| Population | 2,321 | 49 |
East Ipswich vs Mount Urah: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $740K in East Ipswich and $740K in Mount Urah.
On cash flow, East Ipswich leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.90%, compared with 3.38% in Mount Urah, a gap of 0.52 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.4% in East Ipswich and 12.5% in Mount Urah, so landlords in East Ipswich face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
East Ipswich is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,321 against 49, roughly 47 times the size of Mount Urah; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: East Ipswich for rental income, East Ipswich 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