Kirwan vs Pacific Haven
Property investment comparison - Kirwan, QLD 4817 vs Pacific Haven, QLD 4659
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kirwan wins 3, Pacific Haven 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 | Kirwan | Pacific Haven |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $660K | $665K |
| Median unit price | - | $555K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 4.54% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.94% | 5.23% |
| 1-year house growth | +14.6% | +2.7%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | +68.8% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.4% | 3.6% |
| Population | 20,780 | 778 |
Kirwan vs Pacific Haven: what the numbers say
The median house price is $660K in Kirwan and $665K in Pacific Haven, so Kirwan is the cheaper entry point, with Pacific Haven houses about 1% dearer.
Over the past year house prices moved +14.6% in Kirwan and +2.7% in Pacific Haven (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Kirwan, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.4% in Kirwan and 3.6% in Pacific Haven, so landlords in Kirwan face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Kirwan is the bigger suburb, with a population of 20,780 against 778, roughly 27 times the size of Pacific Haven; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Kirwan for a lower purchase price, Kirwan for recent price momentum, Kirwan 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