Skip to main content

Flying Fox vs Moorooka

Property investment comparison - Flying Fox, QLD 4275 vs Moorooka, QLD 4105

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Flying Fox wins 1, Moorooka wins 4. 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.

MetricFlying FoxMoorooka
Median house price$1.4M$1.4M
Median unit price$840K$810K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.01%2.66%
Gross rental yield (units)1.76%3.90%
1-year house growth-+15.4%
3-year house growth-+49.5%
Vacancy rate2.5%0.8%
Population6110,783

Flying Fox vs Moorooka: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.4M in Flying Fox and $1.4M in Moorooka, so Moorooka is the cheaper entry point.

For units, Flying Fox sits at a median of $840K against $810K in Moorooka, which makes Moorooka the more affordable unit market and Flying Fox the pricier one.

On cash flow, Flying Fox leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.01%, compared with 2.66% in Moorooka, a gap of 1.35 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Moorooka and 2.5% in Flying Fox, so landlords in Moorooka face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Moorooka is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,783 against 61, roughly 177 times the size of Flying Fox; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Flying Fox for rental income, Moorooka for a lower purchase price, Moorooka 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