Skip to main content

Acacia Hills vs Wilmot

Property investment comparison - Acacia Hills, TAS 7306 vs Wilmot, TAS 7310

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acacia Hills wins 0, Wilmot wins 4. 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 HillsWilmot
Median house price$800K-
Median unit price$420K$190K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.96%4.60%
Gross rental yield (units)4.48%-
1-year house growth+7.6%+10.9%
3-year house growth-+29.0%
Vacancy rate0.8%0.7%
Population729287

Acacia Hills vs Wilmot: what the numbers say

For units, Acacia Hills sits at a median of $420K against $190K in Wilmot, which makes Wilmot the more affordable unit market and Acacia Hills the pricier one.

On cash flow, Wilmot leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.60%, compared with 2.96% in Acacia Hills, a gap of 1.64 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +7.6% in Acacia Hills and +10.9% in Wilmot, so recent momentum favours Wilmot, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Wilmot and 0.8% in Acacia Hills, so landlords in Wilmot 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 287, roughly 2.5 times the size of Wilmot; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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