Lucas vs Ruffy
Property investment comparison - Lucas, VIC 3350 vs Ruffy, VIC 3666
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Lucas wins 3, Ruffy 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 | Lucas | Ruffy |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $645K | $645K |
| Median unit price | $375K | $515K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.91% | 3.61% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.30% | 3.27% |
| 1-year house growth | +4.0% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +0.8% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 0.4% |
| Population | 2,994 | 164 |
Lucas vs Ruffy: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $645K in Lucas and $645K in Ruffy.
For units, Lucas sits at a median of $375K against $515K in Ruffy, which makes Lucas the more affordable unit market and Ruffy the pricier one.
On cash flow, Lucas leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.91%, compared with 3.61% in Ruffy, a gap of 0.30 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Ruffy and 0.8% in Lucas, so landlords in Ruffy face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Lucas is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,994 against 164, roughly 18 times the size of Ruffy; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Lucas for rental income, Ruffy 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