Rental yield is the simplest metric in property investing — and one of the most- abused. Almost every real-estate listing in Australia quotes gross yield (annual rent ÷ purchase price) and stops there. Gross yield ignores every expense; it's a marketing number, not an investment number.
Net yield deducts the cash holding costs that come with owning the property — rates, water, insurance, management fees, body corporate, repairs and maintenance, pest, gardening. For a typical AU residential investment property that's $5,000–$12,000 a year, depending on whether it's a house or a unit and the state.
The honest gap between gross and net yield in Australia is usually 1.0–1.5 percentage points. So a property quoted at 4.5% gross is closer to 3.0–3.5% net — and net is still BEFORE loan interest. Once you factor in financing at 6%+ interest, most metro residential property is cashflow-negative on a pre-tax basis. That's why negative gearing exists as a strategy: the bet is on capital growth, not rental income.
The 1% rule and other heuristics — careful
You'll see commentary about a property needing to rent for 1% of its purchase price per month (= 12% gross yield) to be a good deal. That's a US heuristic from cheaper-market eras; in 2026 Australian metro residential almost nothing hits it. Useful as a sanity check that you're NOT chasing a sub-2% yield, not as a target.
The more useful sanity check in AU: does the net yield exceed your loan rate? If yes, the property is cashflow-positive before tax (rare in metro markets currently). If no, you're relying on capital growth to make the deal work — model that growth honestly in the calculator's Equity & LVR section before committing.
Houses vs units — the typical yield gap
In every Australian capital city, units yield ~1 percentage point higher than houses in the same suburb — but houses appreciate faster. The trade-off is yield vs growth. Houses suit growth-focused investors with longer holds and the cashflow tolerance to wait. Units suit yield-focused investors who want positive-or-near-it cashflow from day one. Neither is wrong; they answer different questions.