Back to results

Macgregor vs Harrison — 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. Macgregor

    ACT · 2615
    61Strong
    Median
    $695k
    5y growth
    8.2%/yr
    BalancedStable entry · room to scale

  2. Harrison

    ACT · 2914
    57Average
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    7.8%/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
Macgregor
Harrison
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
828.2%/yr
787.8%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
693.5%
502.5%
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%
4242% under cap
2121% 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. Macgregor

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

  2. Harrison

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

Why Macgregor

Stable entry · room to scale

population +9.1% (5y), 8.2%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth8.2%/yr
  • Rental yield3.5%
  • Tight rentals1.4%
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

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