Skip to main content

Riverhills vs Warner

Property investment comparison - Riverhills, QLD 4074 vs Warner, QLD 4500

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Riverhills wins 1, Warner 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.

MetricRiverhillsWarner
Median house price$1.2M$1.1M
Median unit price$795K$730K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.31%-
Gross rental yield (units)3.05%-
1-year house growth-+18.1%
3-year house growth+51.2%+46.9%
Vacancy rate0.9%0.7%
Population4,12112,264

Riverhills vs Warner: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.2M in Riverhills and $1.1M in Warner, so Warner is the cheaper entry point.

For units, Riverhills sits at a median of $795K against $730K in Warner, which makes Warner the more affordable unit market and Riverhills the pricier one.

Looking back three years, Riverhills houses are +51.2% and Warner houses +46.9%, so Riverhills has compounded faster than Warner over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Warner and 0.9% in Riverhills, so landlords in Warner face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Warner is the bigger suburb, with a population of 12,264 against 4,121, roughly 3.0 times the size of Riverhills; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Warner for a lower purchase price, Warner 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