Cuprona vs Devonport
Property investment comparison - Cuprona, TAS 7316 vs Devonport, TAS 7310
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cuprona wins 2, Devonport 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 | Cuprona | Devonport |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $600K | $590K |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.83% | 4.68% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | - | +16.4% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +24.3% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.7% | 1.4% |
| Population | 140 | 14,481 |
Cuprona vs Devonport: what the numbers say
The median house price is $600K in Cuprona and $590K in Devonport, so Devonport is the cheaper entry point, with Cuprona houses about 2% dearer.
On cash flow, Cuprona leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.83%, compared with 4.68% in Devonport, a gap of 0.15 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Cuprona and 1.4% in Devonport, so landlords in Cuprona face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Devonport is the bigger suburb, with a population of 14,481 against 140, roughly 103 times the size of Cuprona; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Cuprona for rental income, Devonport for a lower purchase price, Cuprona 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