Running Creek vs Woombye
Property investment comparison - Running Creek, QLD 4287 vs Woombye, QLD 4559
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Running Creek wins 0, Woombye 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 | Running Creek | Woombye |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.2M | $1.1M |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.66% | 3.73% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 3.81% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +13.8% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +37.5% |
| Vacancy rate | 3.5% | 0.5% |
| Population | 146 | 3,944 |
Running Creek vs Woombye: what the numbers say
The median house price is $1.2M in Running Creek and $1.1M in Woombye, so Woombye is the cheaper entry point.
On cash flow, Woombye leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.73%, compared with 2.66% in Running Creek, a gap of 1.07 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.5% in Woombye and 3.5% in Running Creek, so landlords in Woombye face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Woombye is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,944 against 146, roughly 27 times the size of Running Creek; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Woombye for rental income, Woombye for a lower purchase price, Woombye 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