Bridgewater vs Hampshire
Property investment comparison - Bridgewater, TAS 7030 vs Hampshire, TAS 7321
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Bridgewater wins 1, Hampshire 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 | Bridgewater | Hampshire |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $520K | $520K |
| Median unit price | $460K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.90% | 5.43% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.50% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +23.3% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +10.6% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.3% | 1.8% |
| Population | 4,592 | 54 |
Bridgewater vs Hampshire: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $520K in Bridgewater and $520K in Hampshire.
On cash flow, Hampshire leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.43%, compared with 4.90% in Bridgewater, a gap of 0.53 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Bridgewater and 1.8% in Hampshire, so landlords in Bridgewater face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Bridgewater is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,592 against 54, roughly 85 times the size of Hampshire; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Hampshire for rental income, Bridgewater 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