Back to results

Launceston vs Macgregor — which is best for growth?

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. Launceston

    TAS · 7250
    42Below trend
    Median
    $595k
    5y growth
    6.1%/yr
    BalancedStable entry point

  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
Launceston
Macgregor
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
616.1%/yr
828.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
542.7%
693.5%
Rental demand
weight 10%
551.8%
651.4%
Population growth
weight 12%
313.1%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
5213.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0$0.0bn
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
1515% under cap
11% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
60-2.0% YoY
65-3.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Launceston

    2/8
    • Construction pipeline
    • Affordability

  2. Macgregor

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

Why Launceston

Stable entry point

6.1%/yr capital growth, tight 1.8% vacancy.

Drivers
  • Capital growth6.1%/yr
  • Supply tightening-2.0% YoY
Risks

No material risk flags raised by the model.

Construction ·UTAS Launceston Inveresk Campus1.5 kmRecently completed · 2024

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