Ludmilla vs Darwin vs Rosebery — which is best for yield?

Same eight metrics, scored against the same benchmark, ranked against a $900kbudget. Look for where one suburb is materially ahead — that's the dimension that should sway your call.

Ludmilla
NT · 0820
40Below trend
Median
$645k
5y growth
4.4%/yr
BalancedGrowth-led, low cashflow
Darwin
NT · 0800
44Below trend
Median
$745k
5y growth
3.8%/yr
YieldLate-cycle hold
Rosebery
NT · 0832
49Average
Median
$595k
5y growth
5.8%/yr
BalancedStable entry point

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight

Ludmilla

Darwin

Rosebery

Capital growth (5y)

weight 22%

444.4%/yr

383.8%/yr

585.8%/yr

Rental yield

weight 13%

482.4%

1005.4%

733.7%

Rental demand

weight 10%

382.5%

502.0%

Population growth

weight 12%

717.1%

Income growth

weight 12%

4812.0%

5614.0%

Construction pipeline

weight 15%

0–

Affordability

weight 8%

2828% under cap

1717% under cap

3434% under cap

Supply tightening

weight 8%

40+2.0% YoY

500.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

Ludmilla
0/8
No outright lead on any single dimension.
Darwin
1/8
- Rental yield
Rosebery
5/8
- Capital growth (5y)
- Rental demand
- Income growth
- Affordability
- Supply tightening

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

Why Darwin

Late-cycle hold

5.4% gross yield, population +7.1% (5y).

Drivers

Rental yield5.4%
Population growth+7.1% (5y)

Risks

Modest 5y growth (3.8%/yr)
No major construction project in this state

Why Rosebery

Stable entry point

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

Drivers

Rental yield3.7%
Population growth+7.1% (5y)

Risks

No major construction project in this state