Acacia Hills vs Mount Hicks
Property investment comparison - Acacia Hills, TAS 7306 vs Mount Hicks, TAS 7325
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Hills wins 1, Mount Hicks wins 2. 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 | Mount Hicks |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $800K | - |
| Median unit price | $420K | $375K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.96% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.48% | 5.91% |
| 1-year house growth | +7.6% | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 6.7% |
| Population | 729 | 356 |
Acacia Hills vs Mount Hicks: what the numbers say
For units, Acacia Hills sits at a median of $420K against $375K in Mount Hicks, which makes Mount Hicks the more affordable unit market and Acacia Hills the pricier one.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Acacia Hills and 6.7% in Mount Hicks, so landlords in Acacia Hills 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 356, roughly 2.0 times the size of Mount Hicks; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Acacia Hills 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