Back to results

Casey vs Bradfield — which is best for infrastructure?

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. Casey

    ACT · 2913
    61Strong
    Median
    $845k
    5y growth
    9.2%/yr
    GrowthStable entry point

  2. Bradfield

    NSW · 2556
    58Average
    Median
    $1.00M
    5y growth
    5.0%/yr
    YieldStable but fully priced

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Casey
Bradfield
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
929.2%/yr
505.0%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
623.1%
804.0%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
656.5%
Income growth
weight 12%
6817.0%
6015.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
61$3.0bn
Affordability
weight 8%
1616% under cap
0Over cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
70-4.0% YoY
70-4.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Casey

    4/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Population growth
    • Income growth
    • Affordability

  2. Bradfield

    2/8
    • Rental yield
    • Construction pipeline

Why Casey

Stable entry point

9.2%/yr capital growth, population +9.1% (5y).

Drivers
  • Capital growth9.2%/yr
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Income growth+17.0% (5y)
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Bradfield

Stable but fully priced

4.0% gross yield, listings tightening 4.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Rental yield4.0%
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
  • Population growth+6.5% (5y)
Risks
  • At top of budget (100% of cap)

Construction ·Sydney Metro — Western Sydney Airport4.1 kmConstruction · 2026