Back to results

Phillip vs Bruce — which is best for rental demand?

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. Phillip

    ACT · 2606
    55Average
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    7.0%/yr
    GrowthGrowth-led, low cashflow

  2. Bruce

    ACT · 2617
    54Average
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    6.8%/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
Phillip
Bruce
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
707.0%/yr
686.8%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
482.4%
472.4%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
651.4%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
3737% under cap
3737% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
65-3.0% YoY
65-3.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Phillip

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

  2. Bruce

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

Why Phillip

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +9.1% (5y), 7.0%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth7.0%/yr
  • Tight rentals1.3%
  • Supply tightening-3.0% YoY
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.4%)
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Bruce

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +9.1% (5y), 6.8%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth6.8%/yr
  • Tight rentals1.4%
  • Supply tightening-3.0% YoY
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.4%)
  • No major construction project in this state