Back to results

Leederville 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. Leederville

    WA · 6007
    60Strong
    Median
    $1.34M
    5y growth
    8.5%/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
Leederville
Maylands
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
858.5%/yr
929.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
331.7%
331.7%
Rental demand
weight 10%
731.1%
751.0%
Population growth
weight 12%
10012.6%
10012.6%
Income growth
weight 12%
8421.0%
7218.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
1010% under cap
3737% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
90-8.0% YoY
95-9.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Leederville

    2/8
    • Rental yield
    • Income growth

  2. Maylands

    4/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental demand
    • Affordability
    • Supply tightening

Why Leederville

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +12.6% (5y), listings tightening 8.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Population growth+12.6% (5y)
  • Supply tightening-8.0% YoY
  • Capital growth8.5%/yr
  • Income growth+21.0% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (1.7%)
  • 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