Back to results

Claremont vs Midland — which is best for growth?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $600kbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

  1. Claremont

    TAS · 7011
    47Average
    Median
    $595k
    5y growth
    7.8%/yr
    GrowthStable but fully priced

  2. Midland

    WA · 6056
    62Strong
    Median
    $545k
    5y growth
    10.5%/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
Claremont
Midland
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
787.8%/yr
10010.5%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
562.8%
562.8%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
701.2%
Population growth
weight 12%
313.1%
10012.6%
Income growth
weight 12%
5213.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0$0.0bn
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
11% under cap
99% 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. Claremont

    1/8
    • Construction pipeline

  2. Midland

    6/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental yield
    • Rental demand
    • Population growth
    • Income growth
    • Affordability

Why Claremont

Stable but fully priced

7.8%/yr capital growth, listings tightening 4.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Capital growth7.8%/yr
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
Risks
  • At top of budget (99% of cap)

Construction ·New Bridgewater Bridge4.9 kmConstruction · 2025

Why Midland

Stable but fully priced

10.5%/yr capital growth, population +12.6% (5y).

Drivers
  • Capital growth10.5%/yr
  • Population growth+12.6% (5y)
  • Tight rentals1.2%
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
Risks
  • At top of budget (91% of cap)
  • No major construction project in this state