Lalor vs Panmure
Property investment comparison - Lalor, VIC 3075 vs Panmure, VIC 3265
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Lalor wins 2, Panmure 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 | Lalor | Panmure |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $775K | $775K |
| Median unit price | $565K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.67% | 2.78% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.60% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +6.2% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +14.6% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 2.8% |
| Population | 23,219 | 442 |
Lalor vs Panmure: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $775K in Lalor and $775K in Panmure.
On cash flow, Lalor leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.67%, compared with 2.78% in Panmure, a gap of 0.89 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Lalor and 2.8% in Panmure, so landlords in Lalor face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lalor is the bigger suburb, with a population of 23,219 against 442, roughly 53 times the size of Panmure; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lalor for rental income, Lalor 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