Skip to main content

Pacific Pines vs Tingalpa

Property investment comparison - Pacific Pines, QLD 4211 vs Tingalpa, QLD 4173

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Pacific Pines wins 2, Tingalpa 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.

MetricPacific PinesTingalpa
Median house price$1.2M$1.2M
Median unit price$865K$815K
Gross rental yield (houses)-3.30%
Gross rental yield (units)4.63%-
1-year house growth+14.7%+12.8%estimate
3-year house growth+45.3%-
Vacancy rate0.7%1.0%
Population16,6648,461

Pacific Pines vs Tingalpa: what the numbers say

Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Pacific Pines and $1.2M in Tingalpa.

For units, Pacific Pines sits at a median of $865K against $815K in Tingalpa, which makes Tingalpa the more affordable unit market and Pacific Pines the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +14.7% in Pacific Pines and +12.8% in Tingalpa (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Pacific Pines, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Pacific Pines and 1.0% in Tingalpa, so landlords in Pacific Pines face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Pacific Pines is the bigger suburb, with a population of 16,664 against 8,461, larger than Tingalpa; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Pacific Pines for recent price momentum, Pacific Pines 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