Skip to main content

Kamarooka vs Trafalgar

Property investment comparison - Kamarooka, VIC 3570 vs Trafalgar, VIC 3824

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kamarooka wins 2, Trafalgar 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.

MetricKamarookaTrafalgar
Median house price$625K$625K
Median unit price$525K$440K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.39%4.25%
Gross rental yield (units)2.32%4.96%
1-year house growth-+6.6%
3-year house growth-+9.8%
Vacancy rate1.2%1.4%
Population894,349

Kamarooka vs Trafalgar: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $625K in Kamarooka and $625K in Trafalgar.

For units, Kamarooka sits at a median of $525K against $440K in Trafalgar, which makes Trafalgar the more affordable unit market and Kamarooka the pricier one.

On cash flow, Kamarooka leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.39%, compared with 4.25% in Trafalgar, a gap of 0.14 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Kamarooka and 1.4% in Trafalgar, so landlords in Kamarooka face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Trafalgar is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,349 against 89, roughly 49 times the size of Kamarooka; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Kamarooka for rental income, Kamarooka for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison