Kurunjang vs Wallace
Property investment comparison - Kurunjang, VIC 3337 vs Wallace, VIC 3352
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Kurunjang wins 0, Wallace 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.
| Metric | Kurunjang | Wallace |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $620K | $620K |
| Median unit price | $450K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.64% | 4.30% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.80% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +12.8% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +18.3% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.4% | 1.9% |
| Population | 10,711 | 227 |
Kurunjang vs Wallace: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $620K in Kurunjang and $620K in Wallace.
On cash flow, Wallace leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.30%, compared with 3.64% in Kurunjang, a gap of 0.66 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Wallace and 2.4% in Kurunjang, so landlords in Wallace face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Kurunjang is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,711 against 227, roughly 47 times the size of Wallace; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Wallace for rental income, Wallace 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