Skip to main content

Forest Hill vs Shaw

Property investment comparison - Forest Hill, QLD 4342 vs Shaw, QLD 4818

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Forest Hill wins 3, Shaw wins 2. 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.

MetricForest HillShaw
Median house price$745K$745K
Median unit price$525K$525K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.77%4.10%
Gross rental yield (units)2.02%5.00%
1-year house growth+16.4%+15.8%
3-year house growth+83.8%+70.3%
Vacancy rate0.6%0.7%
Population935760

Forest Hill vs Shaw: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $745K in Forest Hill and $745K in Shaw.

On cash flow, Shaw leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.10%, compared with 3.77% in Forest Hill, a gap of 0.33 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +16.4% in Forest Hill and +15.8% in Shaw, so recent momentum favours Forest Hill, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Forest Hill houses are +83.8% and Shaw houses +70.3%, so Forest Hill has compounded faster than Shaw over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Forest Hill and 0.7% in Shaw, so landlords in Forest Hill face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Forest Hill is the bigger suburb, with a population of 935 against 760, larger than Shaw; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Shaw for rental income, Forest Hill for recent price momentum, Forest Hill 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