Nickol vs Spencer Park
Property investment comparison - Nickol, WA 6714 vs Spencer Park, WA 6330
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Nickol wins 1, Spencer Park 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.
| Metric | Nickol | Spencer Park |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $740K | $735K |
| Median unit price | $2.1M | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 9.90% | 4.50% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 2.60% | 3.00% |
| 1-year house growth | +17.2%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | +66.9% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.7% | 0.3% |
| Population | 4,938 | 3,445 |
Nickol vs Spencer Park: what the numbers say
The median house price is $740K in Nickol and $735K in Spencer Park, so Spencer Park is the cheaper entry point, with Nickol houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Nickol leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 9.90%, compared with 4.50% in Spencer Park, a gap of 5.40 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Spencer Park and 0.7% in Nickol, so landlords in Spencer Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Nickol is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,938 against 3,445, larger than Spencer Park; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Nickol for rental income, Spencer Park for a lower purchase price, Spencer Park 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