Skip to main content

Murdoch vs Walmsley

Property investment comparison - Murdoch, WA 6150 vs Walmsley, WA 6330

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Murdoch wins 3, Walmsley 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.

MetricMurdochWalmsley
Median house price$1.3M$1.3M
Median unit price$1.1M$755K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.30%2.93%
Gross rental yield (units)-3.86%
1-year house growth+9.5%estimate-
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate1.0%2.5%
Population3,35247

Murdoch vs Walmsley: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.3M in Murdoch and $1.3M in Walmsley, so Murdoch is the cheaper entry point, with Walmsley houses about 2% dearer.

For units, Murdoch sits at a median of $1.1M against $755K in Walmsley, which makes Walmsley the more affordable unit market and Murdoch the pricier one.

On cash flow, Murdoch leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.30%, compared with 2.93% in Walmsley, a gap of 0.37 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Murdoch and 2.5% in Walmsley, so landlords in Murdoch face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Murdoch is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,352 against 47, roughly 71 times the size of Walmsley; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Murdoch for rental income, Murdoch for a lower purchase price, Murdoch 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