Back to results

O'Connor vs Calwell — 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. O'Connor

    ACT · 2602
    50Average
    Median
    $1.40M
    5y growth
    5.8%/yr
    GrowthStable but fully priced

  2. Calwell

    ACT · 2905
    60Strong
    Median
    $695k
    5y growth
    8.2%/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
O'Connor
Calwell
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
585.8%/yr
828.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
341.7%
673.4%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
651.4%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
7218.0%
6015.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
77% under cap
5454% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
70-4.0% YoY
60-2.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. O'Connor

    3/8
    • Rental demand
    • Income growth
    • Supply tightening

  2. Calwell

    3/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental yield
    • Affordability

Why O'Connor

Stable but fully priced

population +9.1% (5y), incomes +18.0% (5y).

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Income growth+18.0% (5y)
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
Risks
  • At top of budget (93% of cap)
  • Thin gross yield (1.7%)

Why Calwell

Stable entry · room to scale

population +9.1% (5y), 8.2%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth8.2%/yr
  • Rental yield3.4%
  • Tight rentals1.4%
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state