Back to results

Semaphore vs Grange — 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. Semaphore

    SA · 5019
    57Average
    Median
    $945k
    5y growth
    9.4%/yr
    GrowthGrowth-led, low cashflow

  2. Grange

    SA · 5022
    51Average
    Median
    $1.40M
    5y growth
    8.2%/yr
    GrowthStable but fully priced

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Semaphore
Grange
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
949.4%/yr
828.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
351.8%
251.2%
Rental demand
weight 10%
731.1%
731.1%
Population growth
weight 12%
656.5%
656.5%
Income growth
weight 12%
6817.0%
6817.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
3737% under cap
77% 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. Semaphore

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

  2. Grange

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

Why Semaphore

Growth-led, low cashflow

9.4%/yr capital growth, tight 1.1% vacancy.

Drivers
  • Capital growth9.4%/yr
  • Tight rentals1.1%
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Income growth+17.0% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (1.8%)
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Grange

Stable but fully priced

8.2%/yr capital growth, tight 1.1% vacancy.

Drivers
  • Capital growth8.2%/yr
  • Tight rentals1.1%
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Income growth+17.0% (5y)
Risks
  • At top of budget (93% of cap)
  • Thin gross yield (1.2%)