Lara vs Paaratte
Property investment comparison - Lara, VIC 3212 vs Paaratte, VIC 3268
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Lara wins 2, Paaratte 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 | Lara | Paaratte |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $730K | $730K |
| Median unit price | $560K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.10% | 3.23% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.70% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +6.8%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.7% | 2.9% |
| Population | 19,014 | 36 |
Lara vs Paaratte: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $730K in Lara and $730K in Paaratte.
On cash flow, Lara leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.10%, compared with 3.23% in Paaratte, a gap of 0.87 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.7% in Lara and 2.9% in Paaratte, so landlords in Lara face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lara is the bigger suburb, with a population of 19,014 against 36, roughly 528 times the size of Paaratte; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lara for rental income, Lara 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