Skip to main content

Griffin vs Pimpama

Property investment comparison - Griffin, QLD 4503 vs Pimpama, QLD 4209

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Griffin wins 3, Pimpama wins 1. 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.

MetricGriffinPimpama
Median house price$995K$1M
Median unit price$780K$835K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.63%-
Gross rental yield (units)--
1-year house growth+15.6%+15.6%
3-year house growth+43.0%+46.0%
Vacancy rate1.0%1.1%
Population12,29524,601

Griffin vs Pimpama: what the numbers say

The median house price is $995K in Griffin and $1M in Pimpama, so Griffin is the cheaper entry point, with Pimpama houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Griffin sits at a median of $780K against $835K in Pimpama, which makes Griffin the more affordable unit market and Pimpama the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.6% in both suburbs.

Looking back three years, Griffin houses are +43.0% and Pimpama houses +46.0%, so Pimpama has compounded faster than Griffin over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Griffin and 1.1% in Pimpama, so landlords in Griffin face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Pimpama is the bigger suburb, with a population of 24,601 against 12,295, roughly 2.0 times the size of Griffin; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Griffin for a lower purchase price, Griffin 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