Skip to main content

Glen Forrest vs The Vines

Property investment comparison - Glen Forrest, WA 6071 vs The Vines, WA 6069

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Glen Forrest wins 1, The Vines 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.

MetricGlen ForrestThe Vines
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$640K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.15%3.67%
Gross rental yield (units)2.09%2.68%
1-year house growth+16.3%+13.4%estimate
3-year house growth+67.8%-
Vacancy rate1.0%0.5%
Population2,7895,848

Glen Forrest vs The Vines: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Glen Forrest and $1.2M in The Vines.

On cash flow, The Vines leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.67%, compared with 3.15% in Glen Forrest, a gap of 0.52 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +16.3% in Glen Forrest and +13.4% in The Vines (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Glen Forrest, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.5% in The Vines and 1.0% in Glen Forrest, so landlords in The Vines face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

The Vines is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,848 against 2,789, roughly 2.1 times the size of Glen Forrest; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: The Vines for rental income, Glen Forrest for recent price momentum, The Vines 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