Tittybong vs Warracknabeal
Property investment comparison - Tittybong, VIC 3542 vs Warracknabeal, VIC 3393
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Tittybong wins 2, Warracknabeal 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 | Tittybong | Warracknabeal |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $270K | $300K |
| Median unit price | - | $235K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 7.07% | 6.49% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.06% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +20.8% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +26.0% |
| Vacancy rate | - | 0.1% |
| Population | 3 | 2,359 |
Tittybong vs Warracknabeal: what the numbers say
The median house price is $270K in Tittybong and $300K in Warracknabeal, so Tittybong is the cheaper entry point, with Warracknabeal houses about 11% dearer.
On cash flow, Tittybong leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 7.07%, compared with 6.49% in Warracknabeal, a gap of 0.58 percentage points.
Warracknabeal is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,359 against 3, roughly 786 times the size of Tittybong; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Tittybong for rental income, Tittybong 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