Back to results

Stuart Park vs Driver — 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. Stuart Park

    NT · 0820
    40Below trend
    Median
    $745k
    5y growth
    3.8%/yr
    BalancedLate-cycle hold

  2. Driver

    NT · 0830
    52Average
    Median
    $495k
    5y growth
    6.2%/yr
    BalancedStable entry · room to scale

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Stuart Park
Driver
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
383.8%/yr
626.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
562.8%
743.7%
Rental demand
weight 10%
382.5%
502.0%
Population growth
weight 12%
717.1%
717.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
4812.0%
5614.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
3838% under cap
5959% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
40+2.0% YoY
500.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Stuart Park

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

  2. Driver

    6/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental yield
    • Rental demand
    • Income growth
    • Affordability
    • Supply tightening

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

Why Driver

Stable entry · room to scale

3.7% gross yield, population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers
  • Rental yield3.7%
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth6.2%/yr
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state