Skip to main content

Killara vs Kinglake

Property investment comparison - Killara, VIC 3691 vs Kinglake, VIC 3763

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Killara wins 4, Kinglake 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.

MetricKillaraKinglake
Median house price$775K$770K
Median unit price$445K$760K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.20%4.12%
Gross rental yield (units)4.06%1.78%
1-year house growth+16.4%estimate-1.9%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate3.3%2.3%
Population1,4851,662

Killara vs Kinglake: what the numbers say

The median house price is $775K in Killara and $770K in Kinglake, so Kinglake is the cheaper entry point, with Killara houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Killara sits at a median of $445K against $760K in Kinglake, which makes Killara the more affordable unit market and Kinglake the pricier one.

On cash flow, Killara leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.20%, compared with 4.12% in Kinglake, a gap of 0.08 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +16.4% in Killara (an estimate) and -1.9% in Kinglake (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Killara, while Kinglake went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 2.3% in Kinglake and 3.3% in Killara, so landlords in Kinglake face less competition for tenants.

Kinglake is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,662 against 1,485, larger than Killara; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Killara for rental income, Kinglake for a lower purchase price, Killara for recent price momentum, Kinglake 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