Back to results

Fremantle vs Maylands — which is best for growth?

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. Fremantle

    WA · 6160
    58Average
    Median
    $1.25M
    5y growth
    8.2%/yr
    GrowthGrowth-led, low cashflow

  2. Maylands

    WA · 6051
    63Strong
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    9.2%/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
Fremantle
Maylands
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
828.2%/yr
929.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
321.6%
331.7%
Rental demand
weight 10%
701.2%
751.0%
Population growth
weight 12%
10012.6%
10012.6%
Income growth
weight 12%
7619.0%
7218.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
1717% under cap
3737% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
80-6.0% YoY
95-9.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Fremantle

    1/8
    • Income growth

  2. Maylands

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

Why Fremantle

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +12.6% (5y), 8.2%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+12.6% (5y)
  • Capital growth8.2%/yr
  • Supply tightening-6.0% YoY
  • Income growth+19.0% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (1.6%)
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Maylands

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +12.6% (5y), listings tightening 9.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Population growth+12.6% (5y)
  • Supply tightening-9.0% YoY
  • Capital growth9.2%/yr
  • Tight rentals1.0%
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (1.7%)
  • No major construction project in this state