Back to results

Mount Barker vs Hahndorf — 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. Mount Barker

    SA · 5251
    56Average
    Median
    $745k
    5y growth
    9.2%/yr
    GrowthGrowth-led, low cashflow

  2. Hahndorf

    SA · 5245
    50Average
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    7.8%/yr
    GrowthStable but fully priced

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Mount Barker
Hahndorf
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
929.2%/yr
787.8%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
492.4%
391.9%
Rental demand
weight 10%
651.4%
651.4%
Population growth
weight 12%
656.5%
656.5%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
2626% under cap
66% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
65-3.0% YoY
65-3.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Mount Barker

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

  2. Hahndorf

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

Why Mount Barker

Growth-led, low cashflow

9.2%/yr capital growth, tight 1.4% vacancy.

Drivers
  • Capital growth9.2%/yr
  • Tight rentals1.4%
  • Supply tightening-3.0% YoY
  • Population growth+6.5% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.4%)
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Hahndorf

Stable but fully priced

7.8%/yr capital growth, tight 1.4% vacancy.

Drivers
  • Capital growth7.8%/yr
  • Tight rentals1.4%
  • Supply tightening-3.0% YoY
  • Population growth+6.5% (5y)
Risks
  • At top of budget (95% of cap)
  • Thin gross yield (1.9%)