Skip to main content

Lamb Range vs Richmond

Property investment comparison - Lamb Range, QLD 4870 vs Richmond, QLD 4740

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Lamb Range wins 3, Richmond 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.

MetricLamb RangeRichmond
Median house price$1.1M$1.1M
Median unit price$420K$815K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.74%4.27%
Gross rental yield (units)5.80%3.55%
1-year house growth-+16.6%
3-year house growth-+46.7%
Vacancy rate0.6%3.9%
Population7852

Lamb Range vs Richmond: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.1M in Lamb Range and $1.1M in Richmond, so Richmond is the cheaper entry point.

For units, Lamb Range sits at a median of $420K against $815K in Richmond, which makes Lamb Range the more affordable unit market and Richmond the pricier one.

On cash flow, Richmond leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.27%, compared with 3.74% in Lamb Range, a gap of 0.53 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Lamb Range and 3.9% in Richmond, so landlords in Lamb Range face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Richmond is the bigger suburb, with a population of 852 against 7, roughly 122 times the size of Lamb Range; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Richmond for rental income, Richmond for a lower purchase price, Lamb Range 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