Gnotuk vs Thomson
Property investment comparison - Gnotuk, VIC 3260 vs Thomson, VIC 3219
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Gnotuk wins 1, Thomson 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.
| Metric | Gnotuk | Thomson |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $610K | $610K |
| Median unit price | $590K | $520K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 4.05% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.81% | 4.25% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +12.0%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.6% | 0.8% |
| Population | 120 | 1,606 |
Gnotuk vs Thomson: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $610K in Gnotuk and $610K in Thomson.
For units, Gnotuk sits at a median of $590K against $520K in Thomson, which makes Thomson the more affordable unit market and Gnotuk the pricier one.
Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Gnotuk and 0.8% in Thomson, so landlords in Gnotuk face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Thomson is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,606 against 120, roughly 13 times the size of Gnotuk; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Gnotuk for the tighter rental market. 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