Back to results

Macgregor vs Calwell — 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. Macgregor

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

  2. Calwell

    ACT · 2905
    56Average
    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
Macgregor
Calwell
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
828.2%/yr
828.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
693.5%
673.4%
Rental demand
weight 10%
651.4%
651.4%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
6015.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
11% under cap
11% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
65-3.0% YoY
60-2.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Macgregor

    3/8
    • Rental yield
    • Income growth
    • Supply tightening

  2. Calwell

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

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

Why Calwell

Stable but fully priced

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

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