Rochester vs Rubicon
Property investment comparison - Rochester, VIC 3561 vs Rubicon, VIC 3712
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Rochester wins 3, Rubicon 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 | Rochester | Rubicon |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $465K | $470K |
| Median unit price | - | $195K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.53% | 4.21% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.00% | 4.19% |
| 1-year house growth | +13.5%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.5% | - |
| Population | 3,154 | 44 |
Rochester vs Rubicon: what the numbers say
The median house price is $465K in Rochester and $470K in Rubicon, so Rochester is the cheaper entry point, with Rubicon houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Rochester leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.53%, compared with 4.21% in Rubicon, a gap of 1.32 percentage points.
Rochester is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,154 against 44, roughly 72 times the size of Rubicon; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Rochester for rental income, Rochester for a lower purchase price. 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