Acacia Hills vs Quoiba
Property investment comparison - Acacia Hills, TAS 7306 vs Quoiba, TAS 7310
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Hills wins 2, Quoiba 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 | Quoiba |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $800K | - |
| Median unit price | $420K | $480K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.96% | 4.68% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.48% | 5.37% |
| 1-year house growth | +7.6% | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 2.2% |
| Population | 729 | 427 |
Acacia Hills vs Quoiba: what the numbers say
For units, Acacia Hills sits at a median of $420K against $480K in Quoiba, which makes Acacia Hills the more affordable unit market and Quoiba the pricier one.
On cash flow, Quoiba leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.68%, compared with 2.96% in Acacia Hills, a gap of 1.72 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Acacia Hills and 2.2% in Quoiba, 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 427, larger than Quoiba; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Quoiba for rental income, 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