Acton vs Chasm Creek
Property investment comparison - Acton, TAS 7320 vs Chasm Creek, TAS 7321
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Acton wins 1, Chasm Creek wins 1. 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 | Acton | Chasm Creek |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $480K | - |
| Median unit price | $490K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.90% | 2.98% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.99% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +21.6% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +30.3% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.0% | 1.9% |
| Population | 1,377 | 53 |
Acton vs Chasm Creek: what the numbers say
On cash flow, Acton leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.90%, compared with 2.98% in Chasm Creek, a gap of 1.92 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Chasm Creek and 2.0% in Acton, so landlords in Chasm Creek face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Acton is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,377 against 53, roughly 26 times the size of Chasm Creek; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Acton for rental income, Chasm Creek 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