Muirlea vs Shaw
Property investment comparison - Muirlea, QLD 4306 vs Shaw, QLD 4818
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Muirlea wins 0, Shaw 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 | Muirlea | Shaw |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $745K | $745K |
| Median unit price | - | $525K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 4.10% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.00% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +15.8% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +70.3% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.5% | 0.7% |
| Population | 174 | 760 |
Muirlea vs Shaw: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $745K in Muirlea and $745K in Shaw.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Shaw and 1.5% in Muirlea, so landlords in Shaw face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Shaw is the bigger suburb, with a population of 760 against 174, roughly 4.4 times the size of Muirlea; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Shaw 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