Back to results

Midland 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.

  1. Midland

    WA · 6056
    65Strong
    Median
    $545k
    5y growth
    10.5%/yr
    GrowthStable entry point

  2. 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
Midland
Casey
Capital growth (5y)
weight 22%
10010.5%/yr
929.2%/yr
Rental yield
weight 13%
562.8%
623.1%
Rental demand
weight 10%
701.2%
681.3%
Population growth
weight 12%
10012.6%
919.1%
Income growth
weight 12%
6416.0%
6817.0%
Construction pipeline
weight 15%
0–
0–
Affordability
weight 8%
3939% under cap
66% under cap
Supply tightening
weight 8%
70-4.0% YoY
70-4.0% YoY

Winner per dimension

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

  1. Midland

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

  2. Casey

    2/8
    • Rental yield
    • Income growth

Why Midland

Stable entry point

10.5%/yr capital growth, population +12.6% (5y).

Drivers
  • Capital growth10.5%/yr
  • Population growth+12.6% (5y)
  • Tight rentals1.2%
  • Supply tightening-4.0% YoY
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