When a property listing advertises "5.8% yield," that is almost always the gross yield. It looks great. It is also meaningless without context. Net yield, which accounts for all the costs of owning the property, is typically 1 to 2 percentage points lower. Buying on the gross yield figure without calculating the net is one of the most common mistakes first-time investors make.
Here's how to calculate both, why the difference matters, and what to look for when comparing properties.
Gross yield is simple to calculate and widely reported. Here's the formula:
Example: You're looking at a property listed at $480,000. The current weekly rent is $520.
What gross yield is useful for: quick comparison between properties and markets. It lets you screen out obviously low-yield areas fast. If a market is averaging 2.8% gross yield, you can immediately see that cash flow will be very negative before you run a single other number.
What gross yield doesn't tell you: whether the property covers its costs, how much it costs to actually hold each year, or what your real return on capital is after expenses. That's what net yield is for.
Net yield gives you a realistic picture of what you're actually earning relative to what you've invested. The formula is:
Notice the denominator includes acquisition costs, not just the purchase price. That's your true capital invested, and it's what a rigorous yield calculation should be based on.
Using the same $480,000 property from the example above:
Annual holding costs:
Net annual income: $27,040 − $9,338 = $17,702
Total acquisition cost (QLD purchase):
Net yield: $17,702 / $509,350 × 100 = 3.47%
The gross yield was 5.63%. The net yield is 3.47%. That's the real return on your capital before loan costs. The gap is 2.16 percentage points. This kind of gap is typical. On cheaper properties with high strata fees, the gap can be even larger.
To get an accurate net yield figure, include all of the following:
What not to include in yield calculations: mortgage interest, depreciation, and income tax effects. These affect your cash flow position and tax outcome but are not part of the yield calculation itself. They belong in a separate cash flow analysis.
The gap between gross and net yield is not uniform across property types. Here's how it typically breaks down:
Example: A $450,000 apartment with a 5.5% gross yield generates $24,750 in annual rent. If strata fees are $6,000 per year, plus property management, insurance, rates, and maintenance, the total holding costs could easily reach $13,000 to $14,000. That brings net yield to approximately 2.5 to 3%. A gross yield that looked attractive becomes a very expensive hold once strata is accounted for.
This is one reason I'm generally cautious about apartments as investment vehicles unless the numbers are exceptional on a net basis and the strata financials are clean.
Yield benchmarks differ materially by city. Here are approximate gross yield ranges for each major market:
| City / Region | Approx. Gross Yield Range | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Sydney | 2.8% to 3.5% | Low yield, historically strong capital growth |
| Melbourne | 3.0% to 3.8% | Compressed yields, high holding costs |
| Brisbane | 4.2% to 5.0% | More balanced yield and growth profile |
| Adelaide | 4.8% to 5.8% | Strong yield with structural demand tailwinds |
| Perth | 4.5% to 5.5% | High yield with improving growth fundamentals |
| Regional markets | 5.0% to 7.0% | Higher yield, more variable growth and liquidity |
As a general rule, 4.5% or above in gross yield is the minimum I look for in a market where I'm targeting rentvesting clients. In the current interest rate environment, with investor mortgage rates sitting in the 5 to 6% range, you need a gross yield of at least 4 to 4.5% to get anywhere near cash flow neutral. A 3% gross yield means heavy negative cash flow from the first rent payment, and that gap compounds every month.
A 3% gross yield isn't automatically wrong if the capital growth case is compelling and the client can comfortably service the shortfall. But I want clients to go into that position with clear eyes, not because they read a listing and missed the calculation.
There is a long-standing pattern in Australian property: markets with higher yields tend to have more subdued capital growth, and markets with lower yields (Sydney in particular) have historically delivered stronger long-run capital growth.
Neither end of that spectrum is automatically the right choice. A 6.5% yield in a regional market with flat to no capital growth may deliver worse total return over 10 years than a 4.5% yield in a city market with 6 to 7% annual capital growth. The maths depends on the holding period, the loan structure, and what happens to rents over time.
The property type I look hardest for is the one that sits at both ends to a reasonable degree: enough yield that the cash flow shortfall is manageable, in a market with genuine structural capital growth drivers rather than speculative demand. Adelaide's outer northern suburbs are a current example of that combination. Gross yields of 5.5% or higher in suburbs with genuine population growth, infrastructure spending, and AUKUS-linked employment demand. That combination is rare, and it doesn't stay available indefinitely when the market figures it out.
Not all advertised yields are what they appear to be. Here's how I verify them before putting a client's money on the line:
Disclaimer: This article is general information only and not financial or tax advice. Speak to a qualified accountant or financial adviser before making investment decisions.
Sources:
ATO guide to rental income and expenses: ato.gov.au: Rental income
SQM Research vacancy rates by suburb: sqmresearch.com.au: Vacancy rates
CoreLogic rental market data: corelogic.com.au: Research and insights
PropTrack rental insights: proptrack.com.au: Market insights
Book a free strategy call. We'll look at your numbers, talk through your options, and figure out whether rentvesting or direct investment makes sense for where you are right now.
Book a Free Strategy Call →