Back to results

Broome vs Macgregor — which is best for yield?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $700kbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

  1. Broome

    WA · 6725
    42Below trend
    Median
    $645k
    5y growth
    6.6%/yr
    BalancedThin market · ~4k residents

  2. Macgregor

    ACT · 2615
    57Average
    Median
    $695k
    5y growth
    8.2%/yr
    BalancedStable but fully priced

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Broome
Macgregor
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
666.6%/yr
828.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
482.4%
693.5%
Rental demand
weight 10%
502.0%
651.4%
Population growth
weight 12%
10012.6%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
6015.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
88% under cap
11% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
40+2.0% YoY
65-3.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Broome

    2/8
    • Population growth
    • Affordability

  2. Macgregor

    5/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental yield
    • Rental demand
    • Income growth
    • Supply tightening

Why Broome

Thin market · ~4k residents

population +12.6% (5y), 6.6%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+12.6% (5y)
  • Capital growth6.6%/yr
  • Income growth+15.0% (5y)
Risks
  • Only 3,797 residents — illiquid, slow to sell
  • At top of budget (92% of cap)

Why Macgregor

Stable but fully priced

population +9.1% (5y), 8.2%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth8.2%/yr
  • Rental yield3.5%
  • Tight rentals1.4%
Risks
  • At top of budget (99% of cap)
  • No major construction project in this state