Maffra vs Tandarra
Property investment comparison - Maffra, VIC 3860 vs Tandarra, VIC 3571
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Maffra wins 1, Tandarra wins 0. 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 | Maffra | Tandarra |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $500K | $500K |
| Median unit price | $360K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.98% | 3.33% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | +12.5% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +10.6% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.5% | - |
| Population | 5,384 | 55 |
Maffra vs Tandarra: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $500K in Maffra and $500K in Tandarra.
On cash flow, Maffra leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.98%, compared with 3.33% in Tandarra, a gap of 1.65 percentage points.
Maffra is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,384 against 55, roughly 98 times the size of Tandarra; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Maffra 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