Skip to main content

Foulden vs Redcliffe

Property investment comparison - Foulden, QLD 4740 vs Redcliffe, QLD 4020

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Foulden wins 0, Redcliffe 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.

MetricFouldenRedcliffe
Median house price$1.0M$1.0M
Median unit price-$870K
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.25%
Gross rental yield (units)-3.76%
1-year house growth+9.3%+14.5%
3-year house growth+30.8%+38.4%
Vacancy rate1.7%1.6%
Population910,460

Foulden vs Redcliffe: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.0M in Foulden and $1.0M in Redcliffe, so Redcliffe is the cheaper entry point.

Over the past year house prices moved +9.3% in Foulden and +14.5% in Redcliffe, so recent momentum favours Redcliffe, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Foulden houses are +30.8% and Redcliffe houses +38.4%, so Redcliffe has compounded faster than Foulden over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Redcliffe and 1.7% in Foulden, so landlords in Redcliffe face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Redcliffe is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,460 against 9, roughly 1162 times the size of Foulden; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Redcliffe for a lower purchase price, Redcliffe for recent price momentum, Redcliffe 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