Back to results

Farrar vs Ludmilla — which is best for yield?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $1.50Mbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

  1. Farrar

    NT · 0830
    52Average
    Median
    $645k
    5y growth
    6.2%/yr
    BalancedStable entry · room to scale

  2. Ludmilla

    NT · 0820
    42Below trend
    Median
    $645k
    5y growth
    4.4%/yr
    BalancedGrowth-led, low cashflow

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Farrar
Ludmilla
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
626.2%/yr
444.4%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
733.7%
482.4%
Rental demand
weight 10%
502.0%
382.5%
Population growth
weight 12%
717.1%
717.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
5614.0%
4812.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
5757% under cap
5757% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
500.0% YoY
40+2.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Farrar

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

  2. Ludmilla

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

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

Why Ludmilla

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +7.1% (5y), 57% under your cap.

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.4%)
  • No major construction project in this state