Overall score
Devon Hills
42.5/100
Relbia
47.8/100
Devon Hills vs Relbia, TAS Suburb Comparison
Devon Hills for investment and value; Relbia for families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
Devon HillsRelbia
Crime rate
Devon Hills
18.3 / 1k
Relbia
18.3 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Devon Hills
1
Relbia
18
Population
Devon Hills
434
Relbia
691
Metric leadDevon Hills 3Relbia 42 tiedacross 9 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
- Best for familiesRelbia
- Best for investmentDevon Hills
- Best for best valueDevon Hills
Audience fit
Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100
All metrics
Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.
Full comparison table
Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.
| Category | Devon Hills | Relbia |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 42.5/100 | 47.8/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 64.5/100 | 52.2/100 |
| Crime rate | 18.3 / 1k | 18.3 / 1k |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | 2 | — |
| Walkability | 3.0/100 | 2.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 1 | 18 |
| Green cover | 2.7% | 2.5% |
| Population | 434 | 691 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 8/10 | 10/10 |
Comparison summary
Devon Hills reads as a leafier hillside smaller community with elevated outlooks; Relbia is a regional smaller community with local services and a more relaxed pace. Devon Hills sits among greener hillside streets, while Relbia keeps a flatter suburban layout.
Devon Hills pulls ahead on housing affordability and walkability, whereas Relbia is the better pick for nearby cafés and amenities, overall desirability, and a larger local community. On housing, Devon Hills sits in a gently premium band, compared with a expensive feel in Relbia.
Investors and value-focused buyers may find Devon Hills the better fit, while retirees are more likely to prefer Relbia.
Generated from the official metrics on this page. It can omit nuance or contain errors — check the tables and source notes before relying on it.