Back to results

Coconut Grove vs Leanyer — which is best for yield?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $800kbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

  1. Coconut Grove

    NT · 0810
    40Below trend
    Median
    $695k
    5y growth
    4.6%/yr
    BalancedGrowth-led, low cashflow

  2. Leanyer

    NT · 0812
    43Below trend
    Median
    $645k
    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
Coconut Grove
Leanyer
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
464.6%/yr
484.8%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
452.2%
643.2%
Rental demand
weight 10%
452.2%
452.2%
Population growth
weight 12%
717.1%
717.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
5213.0%
5213.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
1313% under cap
1919% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
45+1.0% YoY
45+1.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Coconut Grove

    0/8

    No outright lead on any single dimension.

  2. Leanyer

    3/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental yield
    • Affordability

Why Coconut Grove

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +7.1% (5y), incomes +13.0% (5y).

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.2%)
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Leanyer

Stable entry point

population +7.1% (5y), 3.2% gross yield.

Drivers
  • Population growth+7.1% (5y)
  • Rental yield3.2%
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state