Lancefield vs Woodhouse
Property investment comparison - Lancefield, VIC 3435 vs Woodhouse, VIC 3294
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Lancefield wins 2, Woodhouse 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 | Lancefield | Woodhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $760K | $765K |
| Median unit price | $500K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.20% | 2.53% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.31% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +6.3%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 0.6% |
| Population | 2,743 | 34 |
Lancefield vs Woodhouse: what the numbers say
The median house price is $760K in Lancefield and $765K in Woodhouse, so Lancefield is the cheaper entry point, with Woodhouse houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Lancefield leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.20%, compared with 2.53% in Woodhouse, a gap of 1.67 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Woodhouse and 2.6% in Lancefield, so landlords in Woodhouse face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lancefield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,743 against 34, roughly 81 times the size of Woodhouse; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lancefield for rental income, Lancefield for a lower purchase price, Woodhouse 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