Hampshire vs Upper Burnie
Property investment comparison - Hampshire, TAS 7321 vs Upper Burnie, TAS 7320
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Hampshire wins 1, Upper Burnie wins 2. 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 | Upper Burnie |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $520K | $515K |
| Median unit price | - | $350K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 5.43% | 4.60% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.80% |
| 1-year house growth | - | +15.2%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.8% | 1.2% |
| Population | 54 | 1,891 |
Hampshire vs Upper Burnie: what the numbers say
The median house price is $520K in Hampshire and $515K in Upper Burnie, so Upper Burnie is the cheaper entry point, with Hampshire houses about 1% dearer.
On cash flow, Hampshire leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 5.43%, compared with 4.60% in Upper Burnie, a gap of 0.83 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Upper Burnie and 1.8% in Hampshire, so landlords in Upper Burnie face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Upper Burnie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,891 against 54, roughly 35 times the size of Hampshire; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Hampshire for rental income, Upper Burnie for a lower purchase price, Upper Burnie 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