Mallacoota vs Waterford
Property investment comparison - Mallacoota, VIC 3892 vs Waterford, VIC 3862
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Mallacoota wins 1, Waterford 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 | Mallacoota | Waterford |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $540K | $535K |
| Median unit price | - | $360K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 4.92% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.15% |
| 1-year house growth | +5.6%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.4% | 0.7% |
| Population | 1,183 | - |
Mallacoota vs Waterford: what the numbers say
The median house price is $540K in Mallacoota and $535K in Waterford, so Waterford is the cheaper entry point, with Mallacoota houses about 1% dearer.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Mallacoota and 0.7% in Waterford, so landlords in Mallacoota face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
In short: Waterford for a lower purchase price, Mallacoota 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