Skip to main content

Narangba vs Spring Mountain

Property investment comparison - Narangba, QLD 4504 vs Spring Mountain, QLD 4300

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Narangba wins 0, Spring Mountain wins 3. 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.

MetricNarangbaSpring Mountain
Median house price$1.0M$1.0M
Median unit price$525K-
Gross rental yield (houses)3.48%3.50%
Gross rental yield (units)-3.42%
1-year house growth+17.1%+18.8%
3-year house growth+37.9%+37.9%
Vacancy rate1.6%0.8%
Population20,9106,085

Narangba vs Spring Mountain: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.0M in Narangba and $1.0M in Spring Mountain.

Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 3.48% in Narangba and 3.50% in Spring Mountain, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.

Over the past year house prices moved +17.1% in Narangba and +18.8% in Spring Mountain, so recent momentum favours Spring Mountain, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Spring Mountain and 1.6% in Narangba, so landlords in Spring Mountain face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Narangba is the bigger suburb, with a population of 20,910 against 6,085, roughly 3.4 times the size of Spring Mountain; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Spring Mountain for recent price momentum, Spring Mountain 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