Kerang vs Runnymede
Property investment comparison - Kerang, VIC 3579 vs Runnymede, VIC 3559
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kerang wins 3, Runnymede 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 | Kerang | Runnymede |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $330K | $345K |
| Median unit price | $220K | $460K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.84% | 4.77% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.20% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +9.4%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.7% | - |
| Population | 3,960 | 64 |
Kerang vs Runnymede: what the numbers say
The median house price is $330K in Kerang and $345K in Runnymede, so Kerang is the cheaper entry point, with Runnymede houses about 5% dearer.
For units, Kerang sits at a median of $220K against $460K in Runnymede, which makes Kerang the more affordable unit market and Runnymede the pricier one.
On cash flow, Kerang leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.84%, compared with 4.77% in Runnymede, a gap of 1.07 percentage points.
Kerang is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,960 against 64, roughly 62 times the size of Runnymede; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Kerang for rental income, Kerang for a lower purchase price. 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