Back to results

Moe vs Lower Macdonald — which is best for growth?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $500kbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

  1. Moe

    VIC · 3825
    54Average
    Median
    $339k
    5y growth
    10.1%/yr
    GrowthStable entry point

  2. Lower Macdonald

    NSW · 2775
    57Average
    Median
    $195k
    5y growth
    5.0%/yr
    YieldStable entry · room to scale

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Moe
Lower Macdonald
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
10010.1%/yr
505.0%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
613.1%
1008.3%
Rental demand
weight 10%
402.4%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
787.8%
656.5%
Income growth
weight 12%
5213.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
3232% under cap
6161% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
25+5.0% YoY
75-5.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Moe

    2/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Population growth

  2. Lower Macdonald

    5/8
    • Rental yield
    • Rental demand
    • Income growth
    • Affordability
    • Supply tightening

Why Moe

Stable entry point

10.1%/yr capital growth, population +7.8% (5y).

Drivers
  • Capital growth10.1%/yr
  • Population growth+7.8% (5y)
  • Rental yield3.1%
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

Construction ·Suburban Rail Loop East — Glen Waverley101.9 kmConstruction · 2035

Why Lower Macdonald

Stable entry · room to scale

8.3% gross yield, listings tightening 5.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Rental yield8.3%
  • Supply tightening-5.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
  • Population growth+6.5% (5y)
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

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