Acacia Hills vs Beulah
Property investment comparison - Acacia Hills, TAS 7306 vs Beulah, TAS 7306
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Hills wins 2, Beulah wins 1. The better choice depends on whether you're optimising for cash flow, growth, affordability, or liquidity, the table below highlights the winner on each metric.
| Metric | Acacia Hills | Beulah |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $800K | - |
| Median unit price | $420K | $550K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.96% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.48% | 3.44% |
| 1-year house growth | +7.6% | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 0.7% |
| Population | 729 | 67 |
Acacia Hills vs Beulah: what the numbers say
For units, Acacia Hills sits at a median of $420K against $550K in Beulah, which makes Acacia Hills the more affordable unit market and Beulah the pricier one.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Beulah and 0.8% in Acacia Hills, so landlords in Beulah face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Acacia Hills is the bigger suburb, with a population of 729 against 67, roughly 11 times the size of Beulah; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Beulah for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison