Hamilton vs Mitchell Park
Property investment comparison - Hamilton, VIC 3300 vs Mitchell Park, VIC 3352
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Hamilton wins 1, Mitchell Park 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 | Hamilton | Mitchell Park |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $440K | $435K |
| Median unit price | $325K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.76% | 5.87% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.53% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +10.6%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.3% | 1.6% |
| Population | 10,346 | 887 |
Hamilton vs Mitchell Park: what the numbers say
The median house price is $440K in Hamilton and $435K in Mitchell Park, so Mitchell Park is the cheaper entry point, with Hamilton houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Mitchell Park leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.87%, compared with 4.76% in Hamilton, a gap of 1.11 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Hamilton and 1.6% in Mitchell Park, so landlords in Hamilton face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Hamilton is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,346 against 887, roughly 12 times the size of Mitchell Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Mitchell Park for rental income, Mitchell Park for a lower purchase price, Hamilton 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