Back to results

Dickson vs Mawson — 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.

  1. Dickson

    ACT · 2602
    53Average
    Median
    $1.15M
    5y growth
    6.6%/yr
    GrowthStable but fully priced

  2. Mawson

    ACT · 2607
    51Average
    Median
    $1.04M
    5y growth
    6.6%/yr
    GrowthGrowth-led, low cashflow

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Dickson
Mawson
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
666.6%/yr
666.6%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
452.3%
402.0%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
7218.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
55% under cap
1313% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
70-4.0% YoY
65-3.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Dickson

    3/8
    • Rental yield
    • Income growth
    • Supply tightening

  2. Mawson

    1/8
    • Affordability

Why Dickson

Stable but fully priced

population +9.1% (5y), incomes +18.0% (5y).

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Income growth+18.0% (5y)
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
Risks
  • At top of budget (95% of cap)
  • Thin gross yield (2.3%)

Why Mawson

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +9.1% (5y), tight 1.3% vacancy.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Tight rentals1.3%
  • Capital growth6.6%/yr
  • Supply tightening-3.0% YoY
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.0%)
  • No major construction project in this state