Cuprona vs Newnham
Property investment comparison - Cuprona, TAS 7316 vs Newnham, TAS 7248
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Cuprona wins 3, Newnham 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.
| Metric | Cuprona | Newnham |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $600K | $615K |
| Median unit price | - | $460K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.83% | 4.50% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.00% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +16.1% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +20.6% |
| Vacancy rate | 0.7% | 1.9% |
| Population | 140 | 7,073 |
Cuprona vs Newnham: what the numbers say
The median house price is $600K in Cuprona and $615K in Newnham, so Cuprona is the cheaper entry point, with Newnham houses about 3% dearer.
On cash flow, Cuprona leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.83%, compared with 4.50% in Newnham, a gap of 0.33 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.7% in Cuprona and 1.9% in Newnham, so landlords in Cuprona face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Newnham is the bigger suburb, with a population of 7,073 against 140, roughly 51 times the size of Cuprona; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Cuprona for rental income, Cuprona 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