Back to results

Lower Macdonald vs Currambine — which is best for growth?

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. Lower Macdonald

    NSW · 2775
    58Average
    Median
    $195k
    5y growth
    5.0%/yr
    YieldStable entry · room to scale

  2. Currambine

    WA · 6028
    62Strong
    Median
    $745k
    5y growth
    11.2%/yr
    GrowthStable but fully priced

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Lower Macdonald
Currambine
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
505.0%/yr
10011.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
1008.3%
562.8%
Rental demand
weight 10%
681.3%
701.2%
Population growth
weight 12%
656.5%
10012.6%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
6416.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
7676% under cap
77% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
75-5.0% YoY
70-4.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Lower Macdonald

    3/8
    • Rental yield
    • Affordability
    • Supply tightening

  2. Currambine

    3/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental demand
    • Population growth

Why Lower Macdonald

Stable entry · room to scale

8.3% gross yield, 76% under your cap.

Drivers
  • Rental yield8.3%
  • Budget headroom76% under cap
  • Supply tightening-5.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

Construction ·Sydney Metro West — Parramatta50.2 kmConstruction · 2030

Why Currambine

Stable but fully priced

11.2%/yr capital growth, population +12.6% (5y).

Drivers
  • Capital growth11.2%/yr
  • Population growth+12.6% (5y)
  • Tight rentals1.2%
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
Risks
  • At top of budget (93% of cap)
  • No major construction project in this state