Abbey vs Shadforth
Property investment comparison - Abbey, WA 6280 vs Shadforth, WA 6333
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abbey wins 1, Shadforth 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 | Abbey | Shadforth |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.8M | - |
| Median unit price | - | $285K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.30% | 2.39% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.14% | 7.46% |
| 1-year house growth | +21.8%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 0.6% | 1.8% |
| Population | 1,321 | 715 |
Abbey vs Shadforth: what the numbers say
On cash flow, Shadforth leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.39%, compared with 2.30% in Abbey, a gap of 0.09 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.6% in Abbey and 1.8% in Shadforth, so landlords in Abbey 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 715, larger than Shadforth; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Shadforth for rental income, Abbey 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