Skip to main content

Walmsley vs Woodvale

Property investment comparison - Walmsley, WA 6330 vs Woodvale, WA 6026

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Walmsley wins 2, Woodvale 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.

MetricWalmsleyWoodvale
Median house price$1.3M$1.4M
Median unit price$755K$625K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.93%3.62%
Gross rental yield (units)3.86%3.74%
1-year house growth-+19.8%
3-year house growth-+72.1%
Vacancy rate2.5%1.8%
Population479,579

Walmsley vs Woodvale: what the numbers say

The median house price is $1.3M in Walmsley and $1.4M in Woodvale, so Walmsley is the cheaper entry point, with Woodvale houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Walmsley sits at a median of $755K against $625K in Woodvale, which makes Woodvale the more affordable unit market and Walmsley the pricier one.

On cash flow, Woodvale leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.62%, compared with 2.93% in Walmsley, a gap of 0.69 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.8% in Woodvale and 2.5% in Walmsley, so landlords in Woodvale face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Woodvale is the bigger suburb, with a population of 9,579 against 47, roughly 204 times the size of Walmsley; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Woodvale for rental income, Walmsley for a lower purchase price, Woodvale for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison