Wallace vs Wallan
Property investment comparison - Wallace, VIC 3352 vs Wallan, VIC 3756
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Wallace wins 2, Wallan 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 | Wallace | Wallan |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $620K | $620K |
| Median unit price | - | $465K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.30% | 4.00% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.77% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +0.0% |
| 3-year house growth | - | -0.8% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 2.1% |
| Population | 227 | 15,004 |
Wallace vs Wallan: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $620K in Wallace and $620K in Wallan.
On cash flow, Wallace leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.30%, compared with 4.00% in Wallan, a gap of 0.30 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Wallace and 2.1% in Wallan, so landlords in Wallace face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Wallan is the bigger suburb, with a population of 15,004 against 227, roughly 66 times the size of Wallace; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Wallace for rental income, Wallace 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