Acacia Hills vs Surges Bay
Property investment comparison - Acacia Hills, TAS 7306 vs Surges Bay, TAS 7116
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Hills wins 2, Surges Bay wins 0. 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 | Surges Bay |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $800K | - |
| Median unit price | $420K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.96% | 2.92% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.48% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +7.6% | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 0.9% |
| Population | 729 | 163 |
Acacia Hills vs Surges Bay: what the numbers say
Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 2.96% in Acacia Hills and 2.92% in Surges Bay, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Acacia Hills and 0.9% in Surges Bay, 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 163, roughly 4.5 times the size of Surges Bay; 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