Fawkner vs Kanumbra
Property investment comparison - Fawkner, VIC 3060 vs Kanumbra, VIC 3719
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Fawkner wins 1, Kanumbra 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 | Fawkner | Kanumbra |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $850K | $850K |
| Median unit price | $650K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.60% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | +6.8%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.0% | 6.1% |
| Population | 14,274 | 53 |
Fawkner vs Kanumbra: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $850K in Fawkner and $850K in Kanumbra.
Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Fawkner and 6.1% in Kanumbra, so landlords in Fawkner face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Fawkner is the bigger suburb, with a population of 14,274 against 53, roughly 269 times the size of Kanumbra; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Fawkner 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