Skip to main content

Claremont vs Swansea

Property investment comparison - Claremont, TAS 7011 vs Swansea, TAS 7190

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Claremont wins 5, Swansea wins 0. 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.

MetricClaremontSwansea
Median house price$630K$635K
Median unit price$490K-
Gross rental yield (houses)4.70%3.72%
Gross rental yield (units)5.28%4.47%
1-year house growth+15.6%estimate-3.8%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate0.9%1.7%
Population8,397997

Claremont vs Swansea: what the numbers say

The median house price is $630K in Claremont and $635K in Swansea, so Claremont is the cheaper entry point, with Swansea houses about 1% dearer.

On cash flow, Claremont leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.70%, compared with 3.72% in Swansea, a gap of 0.98 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +15.6% in Claremont (an estimate) and -3.8% in Swansea (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Claremont, while Swansea went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Claremont and 1.7% in Swansea, so landlords in Claremont face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Claremont is the bigger suburb, with a population of 8,397 against 997, roughly 8 times the size of Swansea; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Claremont for rental income, Claremont for a lower purchase price, Claremont for recent price momentum, Claremont 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