Skip to main content

Kinross vs Woodbridge

Property investment comparison - Kinross, WA 6028 vs Woodbridge, WA 6056

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kinross wins 3, Woodbridge 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.

MetricKinrossWoodbridge
Median house price$1.0M$1.1M
Median unit price-$610K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.08%3.90%
Gross rental yield (units)4.60%-
1-year house growth+22.9%+12.7%estimate
3-year house growth+60.0%-
Vacancy rate1.4%1.3%
Population6,9881,207

Kinross vs Woodbridge: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.0M in Kinross and $1.1M in Woodbridge, so Kinross is the cheaper entry point, with Woodbridge houses about 1% dearer.

On cash flow, Kinross leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.08%, compared with 3.90% in Woodbridge, a gap of 0.18 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +22.9% in Kinross and +12.7% in Woodbridge (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Kinross, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Woodbridge and 1.4% in Kinross, so landlords in Woodbridge face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Kinross is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,988 against 1,207, roughly 6 times the size of Woodbridge; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Kinross for rental income, Kinross for a lower purchase price, Kinross for recent price momentum, Woodbridge 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