Back to results

Lower Macdonald vs Camellia — which is best for infrastructure?

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. Lower Macdonald

    NSW · 2775
    59Average
    Median
    $195k
    5y growth
    5.0%/yr
    YieldStable entry · room to scale

  2. Camellia

    NSW · 2142
    57Average
    Median
    $1.30M
    5y growth
    5.0%/yr
    YieldStable entry point

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Lower Macdonald
Camellia
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
505.0%/yr
505.0%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
1008.3%
763.8%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
656.5%
656.5%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
48$2.4bn
Affordability
weight 8%
8787% under cap
1313% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
75-5.0% YoY
75-5.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Lower Macdonald

    2/8
    • Rental yield
    • Affordability

  2. Camellia

    1/8
    • Construction pipeline

Why Lower Macdonald

Stable entry · room to scale

8.3% gross yield, 87% under your cap.

Drivers
  • Rental yield8.3%
  • Budget headroom87% under cap
  • Supply tightening-5.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

Construction ·Sydney Metro West — Parramatta50.2 kmConstruction · 2030

Why Camellia

Stable entry point

3.8% gross yield, listings tightening 5.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Rental yield3.8%
  • Supply tightening-5.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
  • Population growth+6.5% (5y)
Risks

No material risk flags raised by the model.

Construction ·Parramatta Light Rail Stage 20.8 kmApproved · 2031