Maudsland vs Whitsundays
Property investment comparison - Maudsland, QLD 4210 vs Whitsundays, QLD 4802
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Maudsland wins 2, Whitsundays 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 | Maudsland | Whitsundays |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.4M | $1.4M |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.66% | 3.34% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.12% | 3.36% |
| 1-year house growth | +12.9% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +52.5% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.3% | 0.7% |
| Population | 8,073 | 2,281 |
Maudsland vs Whitsundays: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.4M in Maudsland and $1.4M in Whitsundays.
On cash flow, Maudsland leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.66%, compared with 3.34% in Whitsundays, a gap of 0.32 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Whitsundays and 1.3% in Maudsland, so landlords in Whitsundays face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Maudsland is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,073 against 2,281, roughly 3.5 times the size of Whitsundays; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Maudsland for rental income, Whitsundays 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