Highfields vs Rubyanna
Property investment comparison - Highfields, QLD 4352 vs Rubyanna, QLD 4670
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Highfields wins 2, Rubyanna 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 | Rubyanna |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.1M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.39% | 1.75% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | +15.5% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +44.2% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.3% | 3.9% |
| Population | 8,568 | 257 |
Highfields vs Rubyanna: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.1M in Highfields and $1.1M in Rubyanna, so Rubyanna is the cheaper entry point.
On cash flow, Highfields leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.39%, compared with 1.75% in Rubyanna, a gap of 1.64 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Highfields and 3.9% in Rubyanna, 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 257, roughly 33 times the size of Rubyanna; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Highfields for rental income, Rubyanna 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