Back to results

Zuccoli vs Farrar — 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. Zuccoli

    NT · 0832
    52Average
    Median
    $695k
    5y growth
    6.2%/yr
    YieldStable entry · room to scale

  2. Farrar

    NT · 0830
    51Average
    Median
    $645k
    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
Zuccoli
Farrar
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
626.2%/yr
626.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
824.1%
733.7%
Rental demand
weight 10%
502.0%
502.0%
Population growth
weight 12%
717.1%
717.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
5614.0%
5614.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
4242% under cap
4646% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
500.0% YoY
500.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Zuccoli

    1/8
    • Rental yield

  2. Farrar

    1/8
    • Affordability

Why Zuccoli

Stable entry · room to scale

4.1% gross yield, population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers
  • Rental yield4.1%
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth6.2%/yr
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Farrar

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