Back to results

Bakewell vs Nightcliff — which is best for growth?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $1.00Mbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

  1. Bakewell

    NT · 0832
    49Average
    Median
    $595k
    5y growth
    5.8%/yr
    BalancedStable entry · room to scale

  2. Nightcliff

    NT · 0810
    40Below trend
    Median
    $745k
    5y growth
    4.0%/yr
    BalancedGrowth-led, low cashflow

Metric breakdown

Each row scores 0–100 against a fixed benchmark. The leader on each row is highlighted.

Metric · weight
Bakewell
Nightcliff
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
585.8%/yr
404.0%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
663.3%
492.4%
Rental demand
weight 10%
502.0%
452.2%
Population growth
weight 12%
717.1%
717.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
5614.0%
5213.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
4141% under cap
2626% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
500.0% YoY
45+1.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

Where each suburb leads the field, with the count of dimensions won.

  1. Bakewell

    6/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental yield
    • Rental demand
    • Income growth
    • Affordability
    • Supply tightening

  2. Nightcliff

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

Why Bakewell

Stable entry · room to scale

population +7.1% (5y), 3.3% gross yield.

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
  • Rental yield3.3%
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Nightcliff

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +7.1% (5y), incomes +13.0% (5y).

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.4%)
  • No major construction project in this state