Ruffy vs Wodonga
Property investment comparison - Ruffy, VIC 3666 vs Wodonga, VIC 3690
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Ruffy wins 1, Wodonga 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.
| Metric | Ruffy | Wodonga |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $645K | $645K |
| Median unit price | $515K | $415K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.61% | 4.40% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.27% | 5.33% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +12.3% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +18.4% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.4% | 1.4% |
| Population | 164 | 20,259 |
Ruffy vs Wodonga: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $645K in Ruffy and $645K in Wodonga.
For units, Ruffy sits at a median of $515K against $415K in Wodonga, which makes Wodonga the more affordable unit market and Ruffy the pricier one.
On cash flow, Wodonga leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.40%, compared with 3.61% in Ruffy, a gap of 0.79 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.4% in Ruffy and 1.4% in Wodonga, so landlords in Ruffy face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Wodonga is the bigger suburb, with a population of 20,259 against 164, roughly 124 times the size of Ruffy; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Wodonga for rental income, Ruffy 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