Highfields vs Image
Property investment comparison - Highfields, QLD 4352 vs Image, QLD 4560
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Highfields wins 0, Image 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.
| Metric | Highfields | Image |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | - | $735K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.39% | 3.94% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.31% |
| 1-year house growth | +15.5% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +44.2% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| Population | 8,568 | 17,392 |
Highfields vs Image: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.1M in Highfields and $1.1M in Image, so Image is the cheaper entry point.
On cash flow, Image leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 3.39% in Highfields, a gap of 0.55 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 0.3%.
Image is the bigger suburb, with a population of 17,392 against 8,568, roughly 2.0 times the size of Highfields; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Image for rental income, Image for a lower purchase price. 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