Skip to main content

Mount Lonarch vs Seymour

Property investment comparison - Mount Lonarch, VIC 3377 vs Seymour, VIC 3660

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Mount Lonarch wins 2, Seymour wins 3. 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.

MetricMount LonarchSeymour
Median house price$455K$460K
Median unit price$325K$295K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.57%5.05%
Gross rental yield (units)6.85%6.52%
1-year house growth-+3.9%
3-year house growth--3.2%
Vacancy rate1.5%0.8%
Population446,569

Mount Lonarch vs Seymour: what the numbers say

The median house price is $455K in Mount Lonarch and $460K in Seymour, so Mount Lonarch is the cheaper entry point, with Seymour houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Mount Lonarch sits at a median of $325K against $295K in Seymour, which makes Seymour the more affordable unit market and Mount Lonarch the pricier one.

On cash flow, Seymour leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.05%, compared with 4.57% in Mount Lonarch, a gap of 0.48 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Seymour and 1.5% in Mount Lonarch, so landlords in Seymour face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Seymour is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,569 against 44, roughly 149 times the size of Mount Lonarch; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Seymour for rental income, Mount Lonarch for a lower purchase price, Seymour for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison