Back to results

Harrison vs Dickson — which is best for growth?

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. Harrison

    ACT · 2914
    57Average
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    7.8%/yr
    GrowthGrowth-led, low cashflow

  2. Dickson

    ACT · 2602
    53Average
    Median
    $1.15M
    5y growth
    6.6%/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
Harrison
Dickson
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
787.8%/yr
666.6%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
502.5%
452.3%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
6817.0%
7218.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
2121% under cap
55% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
70-4.0% YoY
70-4.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Harrison

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

  2. Dickson

    1/8
    • Income growth

Why Harrison

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +9.1% (5y), 7.8%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth7.8%/yr
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Income growth+17.0% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.5%)
  • No major construction project in this state

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%)