Skip to main content

Loxford vs Murringo

Property investment comparison - Loxford, NSW 2326 vs Murringo, NSW 2586

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Loxford wins 5, Murringo 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.

MetricLoxfordMurringo
Median house price$585K$590K
Median unit price$460K$420K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.52%3.97%
Gross rental yield (units)5.16%3.87%
1-year house growth+21.5%estimate-13.3%
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.4%6.2%
Population42390

Loxford vs Murringo: what the numbers say

The median house price is $585K in Loxford and $590K in Murringo, so Loxford is the cheaper entry point, with Murringo houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Loxford sits at a median of $460K against $420K in Murringo, which makes Murringo the more affordable unit market and Loxford the pricier one.

On cash flow, Loxford leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.52%, compared with 3.97% in Murringo, a gap of 0.55 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +21.5% in Loxford (an estimate) and -13.3% in Murringo, so recent momentum favours Loxford, while Murringo went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 2.4% in Loxford and 6.2% in Murringo, so landlords in Loxford face less competition for tenants.

Murringo is the bigger suburb, with a population of 390 against 42, roughly 9 times the size of Loxford; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Loxford for rental income, Loxford for a lower purchase price, Loxford for recent price momentum, Loxford 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