Skip to main content

Eaton vs Spencer Park

Property investment comparison - Eaton, WA 6232 vs Spencer Park, WA 6330

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Eaton wins 3, Spencer Park wins 1. 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.

MetricEatonSpencer Park
Median house price$735K$735K
Median unit price--
Gross rental yield (houses)4.60%4.50%
Gross rental yield (units)6.96%3.00%
1-year house growth+17.3%-
3-year house growth+72.3%+66.9%
Vacancy rate1.0%0.3%
Population8,6693,445

Eaton vs Spencer Park: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $735K in Eaton and $735K in Spencer Park.

On cash flow, Eaton leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.60%, compared with 4.50% in Spencer Park, a gap of 0.10 percentage points.

Looking back three years, Eaton houses are +72.3% and Spencer Park houses +66.9%, so Eaton has compounded faster than Spencer Park over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Spencer Park and 1.0% in Eaton, so landlords in Spencer Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Eaton is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,669 against 3,445, roughly 2.5 times the size of Spencer Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Eaton for rental income, Spencer Park for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison