Skip to main content

Acacia Hills vs Orford

Property investment comparison - Acacia Hills, TAS 7306 vs Orford, TAS 7190

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Hills wins 3, Orford 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.

MetricAcacia HillsOrford
Median house price$800K-
Median unit price$420K$1.1M
Gross rental yield (houses)2.96%3.59%
Gross rental yield (units)4.48%1.85%
1-year house growth+7.6%+13.7%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate0.8%1.9%
Population729685

Acacia Hills vs Orford: what the numbers say

For units, Acacia Hills sits at a median of $420K against $1.1M in Orford, which makes Acacia Hills the more affordable unit market and Orford the pricier one.

On cash flow, Orford leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.59%, compared with 2.96% in Acacia Hills, a gap of 0.63 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +7.6% in Acacia Hills and +13.7% in Orford (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Orford, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Acacia Hills and 1.9% in Orford, 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 685, larger than Orford; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Orford for rental income, Orford for recent price momentum, 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

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison