Abbey vs O'Connor
Property investment comparison - Abbey, WA 6280 vs O'Connor, WA 6163
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abbey wins 0, O'Connor wins 3. 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 | Abbey | O'Connor |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.8M | - |
| Median unit price | - | $625K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.30% | 3.71% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.14% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +21.8%estimate | +22.6%estimate |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.6% | 0.1% |
| Population | 1,321 | 460 |
Abbey vs O'Connor: what the numbers say
On cash flow, O'Connor leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.71%, compared with 2.30% in Abbey, a gap of 1.41 percentage points.
Over the past year house prices moved +21.8% in Abbey (an estimate) and +22.6% in O'Connor (an estimate), so recent momentum favours O'Connor, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 0.1% in O'Connor and 0.6% in Abbey, so landlords in O'Connor face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Abbey is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,321 against 460, roughly 2.9 times the size of O'Connor; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: O'Connor for rental income, O'Connor for recent price momentum, O'Connor 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