Darwin vs Ludmilla vs Millner — which is best for yield?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $1.20Mbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

Darwin
NT · 0800
46Average
Median
$745k
5y growth
3.8%/yr
YieldLate-cycle hold
Ludmilla
NT · 0820
41Below trend
Median
$645k
5y growth
4.4%/yr
BalancedGrowth-led, low cashflow
Millner
NT · 0810
45Average
Median
$595k
5y growth
4.8%/yr
BalancedStable entry · room to scale

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight

Darwin

Ludmilla

Millner

Capital growth (5y)

weight 22%

383.8%/yr

444.4%/yr

484.8%/yr

Rental yield

weight 13%

1005.4%

482.4%

593.0%

Rental demand

weight 10%

382.5%

452.2%

Population growth

weight 12%

717.1%

Income growth

weight 12%

4812.0%

5213.0%

Construction pipeline

weight 15%

0–

Affordability

weight 8%

3838% under cap

4646% under cap

5050% under cap

Supply tightening

weight 8%

40+2.0% YoY

45+1.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

Darwin
1/8
- Rental yield
Ludmilla
0/8
No outright lead on any single dimension.
Millner
5/8
- Capital growth (5y)
- Rental demand
- Income growth
- Affordability
- Supply tightening

Why Darwin

Late-cycle hold

5.4% gross yield, population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers

Rental yield5.4%
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

Why Millner

Stable entry · room to scale

population +7.1% (5y), 3.0% gross yield.

Drivers

Population growth+7.1% (5y)

Risks

No major construction project in this state