Back to results

Fannie Bay vs Stuart Park — which is best for yield?

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. Fannie Bay

    NT · 0820
    34Below trend
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    3.2%/yr
    BalancedStable but fully priced

  2. Stuart Park

    NT · 0820
    39Below trend
    Median
    $745k
    5y growth
    3.8%/yr
    BalancedLate-cycle hold

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Fannie Bay
Stuart Park
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
323.2%/yr
383.8%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
432.1%
562.8%
Rental demand
weight 10%
382.5%
382.5%
Population growth
weight 12%
717.1%
717.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
4812.0%
4812.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
66% under cap
2626% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
40+2.0% YoY
40+2.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Fannie Bay

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

  2. Stuart Park

    3/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental yield
    • Affordability

Why Fannie Bay

Stable but fully priced

population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Risks
  • At top of budget (95% of cap)
  • Thin gross yield (2.1%)

Why Stuart Park

Late-cycle hold

population +7.1% (5y), 2.8% gross yield.

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Risks
  • Modest 5y growth (3.8%/yr)
  • No major construction project in this state