Lyons vs Gunn vs Stuart Park — 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.

Lyons
NT · 0810
41Below trend
Median
$745k
5y growth
4.6%/yr
BalancedGrowth-led, low cashflow
Gunn
NT · 0832
51Average
Median
$645k
5y growth
5.8%/yr
BalancedStable entry · room to scale
Stuart Park
NT · 0820
40Below trend
Median
$745k
5y growth
3.8%/yr
BalancedLate-cycle hold

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight

Lyons

Gunn

Stuart Park

Capital growth (5y)

weight 22%

464.6%/yr

585.8%/yr

383.8%/yr

Rental yield

weight 13%

371.8%

773.9%

562.8%

Rental demand

weight 10%

452.2%

502.0%

382.5%

Population growth

weight 12%

717.1%

Income growth

weight 12%

5213.0%

5614.0%

4812.0%

Construction pipeline

weight 15%

0–

Affordability

weight 8%

3838% under cap

4646% under cap

3838% under cap

Supply tightening

weight 8%

45+1.0% YoY

500.0% YoY

40+2.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

Lyons
0/8
No outright lead on any single dimension.
Gunn
6/8
- Capital growth (5y)
- Rental yield
- Rental demand
- Income growth
- Affordability
- Supply tightening
Stuart Park
0/8
No outright lead on any single dimension.

Why Lyons

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +7.1% (5y), incomes +13.0% (5y).

Drivers

Population growth+7.1% (5y)

Risks

Thin gross yield (1.8%)
No major construction project in this state

Why Gunn

Stable entry · room to scale

3.9% gross yield, population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers

Rental yield3.9%
Population growth+7.1% (5y)

Risks

No major construction project in this state

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