Skip to main content

Latrobe vs Park Grove

Property investment comparison - Latrobe, TAS 7307 vs Park Grove, TAS 7320

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Latrobe wins 3, Park Grove 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.

MetricLatrobePark Grove
Median house price$675K$670K
Median unit price$485K-
Gross rental yield (houses)4.55%4.08%
Gross rental yield (units)4.98%4.93%
1-year house growth+12.2%+18.6%estimate
3-year house growth+25.6%-
Vacancy rate1.1%1.9%
Population5,0302,613

Latrobe vs Park Grove: what the numbers say

The median house price is $675K in Latrobe and $670K in Park Grove, so Park Grove is the cheaper entry point, with Latrobe houses about 1% dearer.

On cash flow, Latrobe leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.55%, compared with 4.08% in Park Grove, a gap of 0.47 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +12.2% in Latrobe and +18.6% in Park Grove (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Park Grove, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Latrobe and 1.9% in Park Grove, so landlords in Latrobe face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Latrobe is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,030 against 2,613, larger than Park Grove; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Latrobe for rental income, Park Grove for a lower purchase price, Park Grove for recent price momentum, Latrobe 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