Skip to main content

Pacific Heights vs West Point

Property investment comparison - Pacific Heights, QLD 4703 vs West Point, QLD 4819

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Pacific Heights wins 1, West Point 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.

MetricPacific HeightsWest Point
Median house price$950K$950K
Median unit price$1.1M$295K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.20%2.91%
Gross rental yield (units)2.79%7.92%
1-year house growth+11.1%-
3-year house growth+29.3%-
Vacancy rate4.4%0.6%
Population1,11132

Pacific Heights vs West Point: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $950K in Pacific Heights and $950K in West Point.

For units, Pacific Heights sits at a median of $1.1M against $295K in West Point, which makes West Point the more affordable unit market and Pacific Heights the pricier one.

On cash flow, Pacific Heights leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.20%, compared with 2.91% in West Point, a gap of 1.29 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 0.6% in West Point and 4.4% in Pacific Heights, so landlords in West Point face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Pacific Heights is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,111 against 32, roughly 35 times the size of West Point; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Pacific Heights for rental income, West Point 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