Falcon vs Lakelands
Property investment comparison - Falcon, WA 6210 vs Lakelands, WA 6180
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Falcon wins 1, Lakelands 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.
| Metric | Falcon | Lakelands |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $800K | $800K |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 4.30% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.06% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +14.6%estimate | +17.6% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +69.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.6% | 3.8% |
| Population | 5,531 | 6,171 |
Falcon vs Lakelands: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $800K in Falcon and $800K in Lakelands.
Over the past year house prices moved +14.6% in Falcon (an estimate) and +17.6% in Lakelands, so recent momentum favours Lakelands, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Falcon and 3.8% in Lakelands, so landlords in Falcon face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lakelands is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,171 against 5,531, larger than Falcon; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lakelands for recent price momentum, Falcon 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