Hocking vs Madora Bay
Property investment comparison - Hocking, WA 6065 vs Madora Bay, WA 6210
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Hocking wins 3, Madora Bay wins 0. 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 | Hocking | Madora Bay |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1M | $1M |
| Median unit price | $800K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.11% | 3.71% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.83% | 4.37% |
| 1-year house growth | +21.0%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.1% | 4.0% |
| Population | 6,987 | 3,830 |
Hocking vs Madora Bay: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1M in Hocking and $1M in Madora Bay.
On cash flow, Hocking leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.11%, compared with 3.71% in Madora Bay, a gap of 0.40 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Hocking and 4.0% in Madora Bay, so landlords in Hocking face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Hocking is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,987 against 3,830, larger than Madora Bay; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Hocking for rental income, Hocking 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