Back to results

Wagaman vs Bridgewater — 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. Wagaman

    NT · 0810
    41Below trend
    Median
    $595k
    5y growth
    4.8%/yr
    BalancedStable but fully priced

  2. Bridgewater

    TAS · 7030
    52Average
    Median
    $495k
    5y growth
    8.4%/yr
    GrowthStable entry point

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Wagaman
Bridgewater
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
484.8%/yr
848.4%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
593.0%
552.7%
Rental demand
weight 10%
452.2%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
717.1%
313.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
5213.0%
5213.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
16$0.8bn
Affordability
weight 8%
11% under cap
1818% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
45+1.0% YoY
70-4.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Wagaman

    2/8
    • Rental yield
    • Population growth

  2. Bridgewater

    5/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental demand
    • Construction pipeline
    • Affordability
    • Supply tightening

Why Wagaman

Stable but fully priced

population +7.1% (5y), 3.0% gross yield.

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Risks
  • At top of budget (99% of cap)
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Bridgewater

Stable entry point

8.4%/yr capital growth, listings tightening 4.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Capital growth8.4%/yr
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
Risks

No material risk flags raised by the model.

Construction ·New Bridgewater Bridge0.0 kmConstruction · 2025