Hampshire vs Sheffield
Property investment comparison - Hampshire, TAS 7321 vs Sheffield, TAS 7306
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Hampshire wins 1, Sheffield 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 | Hampshire | Sheffield |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $520K | $520K |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.43% | 4.55% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.22% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +0.0% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +16.2% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.8% | 1.0% |
| Population | 54 | 1,602 |
Hampshire vs Sheffield: what the numbers say
Houses cost about the same in both suburbs: the median house price is $520K in Hampshire and $520K in Sheffield.
On cash flow, Hampshire leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.43%, compared with 4.55% in Sheffield, a gap of 0.88 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Sheffield and 1.8% in Hampshire, so landlords in Sheffield face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Sheffield is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,602 against 54, roughly 30 times the size of Hampshire; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Hampshire for rental income, Sheffield 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