Riverhills vs Running Creek
Property investment comparison - Riverhills, QLD 4074 vs Running Creek, QLD 4287
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Riverhills wins 2, Running Creek wins 0. 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 | Riverhills | Running Creek |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | $1.2M |
| Median unit price | $795K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.31% | 2.66% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.05% | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | - |
| 3-year house growth | +51.2% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.9% | 3.5% |
| Population | 4,121 | 146 |
Riverhills vs Running Creek: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $1.2M in Riverhills and $1.2M in Running Creek.
On cash flow, Riverhills leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.31%, compared with 2.66% in Running Creek, a gap of 0.65 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Riverhills and 3.5% in Running Creek, so landlords in Riverhills face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Riverhills is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,121 against 146, roughly 28 times the size of Running Creek; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Riverhills for rental income, Riverhills 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