Lurnea vs Robertson

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Lurnea and $1.2M in Robertson.

For units, Lurnea sits at a median of $750K against $645K in Robertson, which makes Robertson the more affordable unit market and Lurnea the pricier one.

On cash flow, Robertson leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.20%, compared with 3.02% in Lurnea, a gap of 0.18 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.6% in Lurnea (an estimate) and +1.1% in Robertson, so recent momentum favours Lurnea, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Lurnea and 3.4% in Robertson, so landlords in Lurnea face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Lurnea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 10,057 against 2,017, roughly 5.0 times the size of Robertson; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Robertson for rental income, Lurnea for recent price momentum, Lurnea for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.