Burnie vs Loyetea
Property investment comparison - Burnie, TAS 7320 vs Loyetea, TAS 7316
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Burnie wins 0, Loyetea 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 | Burnie | Loyetea |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $565K | $565K |
| Median unit price | $400K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.50% | 5.49% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | +12.8%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.9% | 0.9% |
| Population | 693 | 20 |
Burnie vs Loyetea: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $565K in Burnie and $565K in Loyetea.
On cash flow, Loyetea leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.49%, compared with 4.50% in Burnie, a gap of 0.99 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is the same in both, at 0.9%.
Burnie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 693 against 20, roughly 35 times the size of Loyetea; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Loyetea for rental income. 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