Back to results

Gunn vs Millner — 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. Gunn

    NT · 0832
    48Average
    Median
    $645k
    5y growth
    5.8%/yr
    BalancedStable but fully priced

  2. Millner

    NT · 0810
    42Below trend
    Median
    $595k
    5y growth
    4.8%/yr
    BalancedStable entry point

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Gunn
Millner
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
585.8%/yr
484.8%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
773.9%
593.0%
Rental demand
weight 10%
502.0%
452.2%
Population growth
weight 12%
717.1%
717.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
5614.0%
5213.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
88% under cap
1515% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
500.0% YoY
45+1.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Gunn

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

  2. Millner

    1/8
    • Affordability

Why Gunn

Stable but fully priced

3.9% gross yield, population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers
  • Rental yield3.9%
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Risks
  • At top of budget (92% of cap)
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Millner

Stable entry point

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

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state