Ludmilla vs Leanyer vs Casey — which is best for growth?

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
Leanyer
NT · 0812
44Below trend
Median
$645k
5y growth
4.8%/yr
BalancedStable entry point
Casey
ACT · 2913
60Strong
Median
$845k
5y growth
9.2%/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

Ludmilla

Leanyer

Casey

Capital growth (5y)

weight 22%

444.4%/yr

484.8%/yr

929.2%/yr

Rental yield

weight 13%

482.4%

643.2%

623.1%

Rental demand

weight 10%

382.5%

452.2%

681.3%

Population growth

weight 12%

717.1%

919.1%

Income growth

weight 12%

4812.0%

5213.0%

6817.0%

Construction pipeline

weight 15%

0–

Affordability

weight 8%

2828% under cap

66% under cap

Supply tightening

weight 8%

40+2.0% YoY

45+1.0% YoY

70-4.0% 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.
Leanyer
1/8
- Rental yield
Casey
5/8
- Capital growth (5y)
- Rental demand
- Population growth
- Income growth
- 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 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

Why Casey

Stable but fully priced

9.2%/yr capital growth, population +9.1% (5y).

Drivers

Capital growth9.2%/yr
Population growth+9.1% (5y)
Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
Income growth+17.0% (5y)

Risks

At top of budget (94% of cap)
No major construction project in this state