Farrar vs Rapid Creek vs Ludmilla — 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.

Farrar
NT · 0830
49Average
Median
$645k
5y growth
6.2%/yr
BalancedStable entry point
Rapid Creek
NT · 0810
40Below trend
Median
$695k
5y growth
4.4%/yr
BalancedStable entry point
Ludmilla
NT · 0820
39Below trend
Median
$645k
5y growth
4.4%/yr
BalancedGrowth-led, low cashflow

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight

Farrar

Rapid Creek

Ludmilla

Capital growth (5y)

weight 22%

626.2%/yr

444.4%/yr

Rental yield

weight 13%

733.7%

522.6%

482.4%

Rental demand

weight 10%

502.0%

452.2%

382.5%

Population growth

weight 12%

717.1%

Income growth

weight 12%

5614.0%

5213.0%

4812.0%

Construction pipeline

weight 15%

0–

Affordability

weight 8%

1919% under cap

1313% under cap

1919% under cap

Supply tightening

weight 8%

500.0% YoY

45+1.0% YoY

40+2.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

Farrar
5/8
- Capital growth (5y)
- Rental yield
- Rental demand
- Income growth
- Supply tightening
Rapid Creek
0/8
No outright lead on any single dimension.
Ludmilla
0/8
No outright lead on any single dimension.

Why Farrar

Stable entry point

3.7% gross yield, population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers

Rental yield3.7%
Population growth+7.1% (5y)
Capital growth6.2%/yr

Risks

No major construction project in this state

Why Rapid Creek

Stable entry point

population +7.1% (5y), 2.6% gross yield.

Drivers

Population growth+7.1% (5y)

Risks

No major construction project in this state

Why Ludmilla

Growth-led, low cashflow

population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers

Population growth+7.1% (5y)

Risks

Thin gross yield (2.4%)
No major construction project in this state