Acacia Hills vs Ulverstone
Property investment comparison - Acacia Hills, TAS 7306 vs Ulverstone, TAS 7315
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Hills wins 3, Ulverstone 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 | Ulverstone |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $800K | - |
| Median unit price | $420K | $480K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.96% | 4.30% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.48% | 4.40% |
| 1-year house growth | +7.6% | +13.3% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +22.9% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| Population | 729 | 6,653 |
Acacia Hills vs Ulverstone: what the numbers say
For units, Acacia Hills sits at a median of $420K against $480K in Ulverstone, which makes Acacia Hills the more affordable unit market and Ulverstone the pricier one.
On cash flow, Ulverstone leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.30%, compared with 2.96% in Acacia Hills, a gap of 1.34 percentage points.
Over the past year house prices moved +7.6% in Acacia Hills and +13.3% in Ulverstone, so recent momentum favours Ulverstone, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 0.8%.
Ulverstone is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,653 against 729, roughly 9 times the size of Acacia Hills; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Ulverstone for rental income, Ulverstone for recent price momentum. 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