Mudjimba vs Newmarket

The median house price is $1.7M in Mudjimba and $1.7M in Newmarket, so Newmarket is the cheaper entry point, with Mudjimba houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Mudjimba sits at a median of $1M against $850K in Newmarket, which makes Newmarket the more affordable unit market and Mudjimba the pricier one.

On cash flow, Mudjimba leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.15%, compared with 2.55% in Newmarket, a gap of 0.60 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.2% in Mudjimba and +10.5% in Newmarket, so recent momentum favours Mudjimba, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Mudjimba houses are +21.5% and Newmarket houses +29.5%, so Newmarket has compounded faster than Mudjimba over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Mudjimba and 1.2% in Newmarket, so landlords in Mudjimba face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Newmarket is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,083 against 2,664, larger than Mudjimba; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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