Mount Urah vs Poona
Property investment comparison - Mount Urah, QLD 4650 vs Poona, QLD 4650
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Mount Urah wins 0, Poona wins 2. 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 | Mount Urah | Poona |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $740K | $740K |
| Median unit price | - | $575K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.38% | 3.80% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 3.94% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +19.5% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +50.3% |
| Vacancy rate | 12.5% | 2.9% |
| Population | 49 | 576 |
Mount Urah vs Poona: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $740K in Mount Urah and $740K in Poona.
On cash flow, Poona leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.80%, compared with 3.38% in Mount Urah, a gap of 0.42 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.9% in Poona and 12.5% in Mount Urah, so landlords in Poona face less competition for tenants.
Poona is the bigger suburb, with a population of 576 against 49, roughly 12 times the size of Mount Urah; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Poona for rental income, Poona 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