Back to results

Hawker vs Throsby — 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. Hawker

    ACT · 2614
    52Average
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    6.6%/yr
    GrowthGrowth-led, low cashflow

  2. Throsby

    ACT · 2914
    56Average
    Median
    $1.04M
    5y growth
    8.5%/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
Hawker
Throsby
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
666.6%/yr
858.5%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
412.1%
371.9%
Rental demand
weight 10%
651.4%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
6817.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
2121% under cap
1313% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
65-3.0% YoY
70-4.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Hawker

    2/8
    • Rental yield
    • Affordability

  2. Throsby

    4/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental demand
    • Income growth
    • Supply tightening

Why Hawker

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +9.1% (5y), 6.6%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth6.6%/yr
  • Tight rentals1.4%
  • Supply tightening-3.0% YoY
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.1%)
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Throsby

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +9.1% (5y), 8.5%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth8.5%/yr
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Income growth+17.0% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (1.9%)
  • No major construction project in this state