Back to results

Stuart Park vs Ludmilla — 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. Stuart Park

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

  2. Ludmilla

    NT · 0820
    40Below trend
    Median
    $645k
    5y growth
    4.4%/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
Stuart Park
Ludmilla
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
383.8%/yr
444.4%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
562.8%
482.4%
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%
2626% under cap
3636% 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. Stuart Park

    1/8
    • Rental yield

  2. Ludmilla

    2/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Affordability

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

Why Ludmilla

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +7.1% (5y).

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