Skip to main content

Mount Low vs Scarness

Property investment comparison - Mount Low, QLD 4818 vs Scarness, QLD 4655

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Mount Low wins 3, Scarness 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.

MetricMount LowScarness
Median house price$725K$725K
Median unit price-$615K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.56%-
Gross rental yield (units)4.54%-
1-year house growth+16.5%+14.1%
3-year house growth+64.4%+40.5%
Vacancy rate1.3%2.0%
Population5,4883,646

Mount Low vs Scarness: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $725K in Mount Low and $725K in Scarness.

Over the past year house prices moved +16.5% in Mount Low and +14.1% in Scarness, so recent momentum favours Mount Low, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Mount Low houses are +64.4% and Scarness houses +40.5%, so Mount Low has compounded faster than Scarness over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.3% in Mount Low and 2.0% in Scarness, so landlords in Mount Low face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Mount Low is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,488 against 3,646, larger than Scarness; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Mount Low for recent price momentum, Mount Low 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
Mount Low vs Scarness: Property Investment Comparison (2026)