Red Hill vs Redcliffe
Property investment comparison - Red Hill, WA 6056 vs Redcliffe, WA 6104
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Red Hill wins 0, Redcliffe wins 2. 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 | Red Hill | Redcliffe |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $935K | $930K |
| Median unit price | - | $610K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 4.28% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.65% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +19.3% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +73.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.0% | 0.4% |
| Population | 85 | 5,030 |
Red Hill vs Redcliffe: what the numbers say
The median house price is $935K in Red Hill and $930K in Redcliffe, so Redcliffe is the cheaper entry point, with Red Hill houses about 1% dearer.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Redcliffe and 1.0% in Red Hill, so landlords in Redcliffe face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Redcliffe is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,030 against 85, roughly 59 times the size of Red Hill; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Redcliffe for a lower purchase price, Redcliffe 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