Highfields vs Lamb Range
Property investment comparison - Highfields, QLD 4352 vs Lamb Range, QLD 4870
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Highfields wins 2, Lamb Range 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.
| Metric | Highfields | Lamb Range |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | - | $420K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.39% | 3.74% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.80% |
| 1-year house growth | +15.5% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +44.2% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.3% | 0.6% |
| Population | 8,568 | 7 |
Highfields vs Lamb Range: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.1M in Highfields and $1.1M in Lamb Range, so Highfields is the cheaper entry point, with Lamb Range houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Lamb Range leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.74%, compared with 3.39% in Highfields, a gap of 0.35 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Highfields and 0.6% in Lamb Range, so landlords in Highfields face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Highfields is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,568 against 7, roughly 1224 times the size of Lamb Range; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lamb Range for rental income, Highfields for a lower purchase price, Highfields 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