Waterford vs Woodlands
Property investment comparison - Waterford, WA 6152 vs Woodlands, WA 6018
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Waterford wins 1, Woodlands wins 2. 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 | Waterford | Woodlands |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $2.0M | $2.0M |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | - | 2.93% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.87% | 4.57% |
| 1-year house growth | +16.8%estimate | +12.3% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +60.6% |
| Vacancy rate | 4.0% | 0.7% |
| Population | 2,460 | 4,551 |
Waterford vs Woodlands: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $2.0M in Waterford and $2.0M in Woodlands.
Over the past year house prices moved +16.8% in Waterford (an estimate) and +12.3% in Woodlands, so recent momentum favours Waterford, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Woodlands and 4.0% in Waterford, so landlords in Woodlands face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Woodlands is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,551 against 2,460, larger than Waterford; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Waterford for recent price momentum, Woodlands 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