Skip to main content

Fawkner vs Tarcombe

Property investment comparison - Fawkner, VIC 3060 vs Tarcombe, VIC 3666

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Fawkner wins 1, Tarcombe wins 3. 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.

MetricFawknerTarcombe
Median house price$850K$845K
Median unit price$650K$365K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.60%3.08%
Gross rental yield (units)-4.78%
1-year house growth+6.8%estimate-
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.0%0.8%
Population14,27432

Fawkner vs Tarcombe: what the numbers say

The median house price is $850K in Fawkner and $845K in Tarcombe, so Tarcombe is the cheaper entry point, with Fawkner houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Fawkner sits at a median of $650K against $365K in Tarcombe, which makes Tarcombe the more affordable unit market and Fawkner the pricier one.

On cash flow, Fawkner leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.60%, compared with 3.08% in Tarcombe, a gap of 0.52 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Tarcombe and 1.0% in Fawkner, so landlords in Tarcombe 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 32, roughly 446 times the size of Tarcombe; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Fawkner for rental income, Tarcombe for a lower purchase price, Tarcombe 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