Skip to main content

Fisher vs Oxley

Property investment comparison - Fisher, ACT 2611 vs Oxley, ACT 2903

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Fisher wins 2, Oxley 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.

MetricFisherOxley
Median house price$970K$970K
Median unit price$390K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.67%3.98%
Gross rental yield (units)5.09%4.57%
1-year house growth+5.6%-3.9%
3-year house growth+2.1%+4.1%
Vacancy rate0.5%0.1%
Population3,2191,703

Fisher vs Oxley: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $970K in Fisher and $970K in Oxley.

On cash flow, Oxley leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.98%, compared with 3.67% in Fisher, a gap of 0.31 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +5.6% in Fisher and -3.9% in Oxley, so recent momentum favours Fisher, while Oxley went backwards.

Looking back three years, Fisher houses are +2.1% and Oxley houses +4.1%, so Oxley has compounded faster than Fisher over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.1% in Oxley and 0.5% in Fisher, so landlords in Oxley face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Fisher is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,219 against 1,703, larger than Oxley; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Oxley for rental income, Fisher for recent price momentum, Oxley 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