Castra vs Rosetta
Property investment comparison - Castra, TAS 7315 vs Rosetta, TAS 7010
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Castra wins 2, Rosetta 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 | Castra | Rosetta |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $720K | $725K |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.42% | 4.53% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.96% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +16.8% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +6.2% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.3% | 2.6% |
| Population | 41 | 2,833 |
Castra vs Rosetta: what the numbers say
The median house price is $720K in Castra and $725K in Rosetta, so Castra is the cheaper entry point, with Rosetta houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Rosetta leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.53%, compared with 3.42% in Castra, a gap of 1.11 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.3% in Castra and 2.6% in Rosetta, so landlords in Castra face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Rosetta is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,833 against 41, roughly 69 times the size of Castra; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Rosetta for rental income, Castra for a lower purchase price, Castra 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