Back to results

Macgregor vs Salisbury — 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.

  1. Macgregor

    ACT · 2615
    59Average
    Median
    $695k
    5y growth
    8.2%/yr
    BalancedStable entry point

  2. Salisbury

    SA · 5108
    59Average
    Median
    $545k
    5y growth
    10.8%/yr
    GrowthGrowth-led, low cashflow

Metric breakdown

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

Metric · weight
Macgregor
Salisbury
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
828.2%/yr
10010.8%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
693.5%
502.5%
Rental demand
weight 10%
651.4%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
919.1%
656.5%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
5614.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
2323% under cap
3939% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
65-3.0% YoY
75-5.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Macgregor

    3/8
    • Rental yield
    • Population growth
    • Income growth

  2. Salisbury

    4/8
    • Capital growth (5y)
    • Rental demand
    • Affordability
    • Supply tightening

Why Macgregor

Stable entry point

population +9.1% (5y), 8.2%/yr capital growth.

Drivers
  • Population growth+9.1% (5y)
  • Capital growth8.2%/yr
  • Rental yield3.5%
  • Tight rentals1.4%
Risks
  • No major construction project in this state

Why Salisbury

Growth-led, low cashflow

10.8%/yr capital growth, listings tightening 5.0% YoY.

Drivers
  • Capital growth10.8%/yr
  • Supply tightening-5.0% YoY
  • Tight rentals1.3%
  • Population growth+6.5% (5y)
Risks
  • Thin gross yield (2.5%)
  • No major construction project in this state