Locksley vs Tullamarine
Property investment comparison - Locksley, VIC 3665 vs Tullamarine, VIC 3043
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Locksley wins 0, Tullamarine 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 | Locksley | Tullamarine |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $825K | $825K |
| Median unit price | - | $600K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.81% | 3.78% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.77% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +10.0% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +14.2% |
| Vacancy rate | - | 1.1% |
| Population | 131 | 6,733 |
Locksley vs Tullamarine: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $825K in Locksley and $825K in Tullamarine.
On cash flow, Tullamarine leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.78%, compared with 2.81% in Locksley, a gap of 0.97 percentage points.
Tullamarine is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,733 against 131, roughly 51 times the size of Locksley; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Tullamarine for rental income. 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