Kealba vs Waterloo
Property investment comparison - Kealba, VIC 3021 vs Waterloo, VIC 3373
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kealba wins 2, Waterloo 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 | Kealba | Waterloo |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $775K | $775K |
| Median unit price | - | $390K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.70% | 2.46% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.70% | 2.03% |
| 1-year house growth | +7.3%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.3% | 0.9% |
| Population | 3,226 | 122 |
Kealba vs Waterloo: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $775K in Kealba and $775K in Waterloo.
On cash flow, Kealba leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.70%, compared with 2.46% in Waterloo, a gap of 1.24 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Waterloo and 1.3% in Kealba, so landlords in Waterloo face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Kealba is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,226 against 122, roughly 26 times the size of Waterloo; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Kealba for rental income, Waterloo 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