Laravale vs Maudsland
Property investment comparison - Laravale, QLD 4285 vs Maudsland, QLD 4210
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Laravale wins 2, Maudsland 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 | Laravale | Maudsland |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.4M | $1.4M |
| Median unit price | $245K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.43% | 3.66% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.72% | 4.12% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +12.9% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +52.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.7% | 1.3% |
| Population | 185 | 8,073 |
Laravale vs Maudsland: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.4M in Laravale and $1.4M in Maudsland.
On cash flow, Maudsland leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.66%, compared with 2.43% in Laravale, a gap of 1.23 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Laravale and 1.3% in Maudsland, so landlords in Laravale face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Maudsland is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,073 against 185, roughly 44 times the size of Laravale; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Maudsland for rental income, Laravale 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