Garfield vs Wal Wal
Property investment comparison - Garfield, VIC 3814 vs Wal Wal, VIC 3385
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Garfield wins 1, Wal Wal wins 0. 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.
| Metric | Garfield | Wal Wal |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $780K | $780K |
| Median unit price | $575K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.90% | 2.76% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.01% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +2.5% | - |
| 3-year house growth | -6.6% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.1% | - |
| Population | 2,114 | 37 |
Garfield vs Wal Wal: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $780K in Garfield and $780K in Wal Wal.
On cash flow, Garfield leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.90%, compared with 2.76% in Wal Wal, a gap of 1.14 percentage points.
Garfield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,114 against 37, roughly 57 times the size of Wal Wal; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Garfield for rental income. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison