Back to results

O'Connor vs Dickson — 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. Dickson

    ACT · 2602
    54Average
    Median
    $1.15M
    5y growth
    6.6%/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
O'Connor
Dickson
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
585.8%/yr
666.6%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
341.7%
452.3%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
7218.0%
7218.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
77% under cap
2424% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
70-4.0% YoY
70-4.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. O'Connor

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

  2. Dickson

    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 Dickson

Growth-led, low cashflow

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
  • Thin gross yield (2.3%)
  • No major construction project in this state