Overall score
Mount Hicks
41.5/100
Yolla
44.2/100
Mount Hicks vs Yolla, TAS Suburb Comparison
Mount Hicks for value; Yolla for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
Mount HicksYolla
Crime rate
Mount Hicks
50.0 / 1k
Yolla
50.0 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Mount Hicks
2
Yolla
17
Population
Mount Hicks
356
Yolla
286
Metric leadMount Hicks 3Yolla 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 retireesYolla
- Best for familiesYolla
- Best for best valueMount Hicks
- Best for best schoolsYolla
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 | Mount Hicks | Yolla |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 41.5/100 | 44.2/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 69.0/100 | 68.0/100 |
| Crime rate | 50.0 / 1k | 50.0 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | — | 1 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Walkability | 0.0/100 | 4.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 2 | 17 |
| Green cover | 10.0% | 11.1% |
| Population | 356 | 286 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 4/10 | 3/10 |
Comparison summary
Mount Hicks is a hillside smaller community with greener streets and a quieter pace, while Yolla is a regional smaller community with local services and a more relaxed pace. Mount Hicks sits among greener hillside streets, while Yolla keeps a flatter suburban layout.
On the data, Mount Hicks is stronger for housing affordability, overall desirability, and a larger local community; Yolla answers with walkability, plus nearby cafés and amenities. On housing, Mount Hicks sits in a well priced band, compared with a affordable feel in Yolla.
Families, investors, and value-focused buyers may find Mount Hicks the better fit, while households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Yolla.
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.