Acacia Hills vs Upper Woodstock
Property investment comparison - Acacia Hills, TAS 7306 vs Upper Woodstock, TAS 7150
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Hills wins 2, Upper Woodstock 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 | Upper Woodstock |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $800K | - |
| Median unit price | $420K | $985K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.96% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.48% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +7.6% | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.8% | 6.1% |
| Population | 729 | 66 |
Acacia Hills vs Upper Woodstock: what the numbers say
For units, Acacia Hills sits at a median of $420K against $985K in Upper Woodstock, which makes Acacia Hills the more affordable unit market and Upper Woodstock the pricier one.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Acacia Hills and 6.1% in Upper Woodstock, 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 66, roughly 11 times the size of Upper Woodstock; 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.
Full profile
Upper Woodstock, TAS 7150
Open Upper Woodstock suburb profileRecent sales in Upper Woodstock
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