Skip to main content

Footscray vs Warrak

Property investment comparison - Footscray, VIC 3011 vs Warrak, VIC 3377

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Footscray wins 2, Warrak 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.

MetricFootscrayWarrak
Median house price$935K$925K
Median unit price$470K$325K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.49%2.67%
Gross rental yield (units)5.80%7.05%
1-year house growth-0.9%-
3-year house growth+1.1%-
Vacancy rate1.5%1.7%
Population17,13168

Footscray vs Warrak: what the numbers say

The median house price is $935K in Footscray and $925K in Warrak, so Warrak is the cheaper entry point, with Footscray houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Footscray sits at a median of $470K against $325K in Warrak, which makes Warrak the more affordable unit market and Footscray the pricier one.

On cash flow, Footscray leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.49%, compared with 2.67% in Warrak, a gap of 0.82 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Footscray and 1.7% in Warrak, so landlords in Footscray face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Footscray is the bigger suburb, with a population of 17,131 against 68, roughly 252 times the size of Warrak; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Footscray for rental income, Warrak for a lower purchase price, Footscray 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