Abbotsbury vs Duckenfield
Property investment comparison - Abbotsbury, NSW 2176 vs Duckenfield, NSW 2321
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abbotsbury wins 2, Duckenfield 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 | Abbotsbury | Duckenfield |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.8M | - |
| Median unit price | $770K | $605K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.81% | 2.80% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.36% | 4.87% |
| 1-year house growth | +10.8% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +22.3% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 5.2% | 6.3% |
| Population | 4,200 | 92 |
Abbotsbury vs Duckenfield: what the numbers say
For units, Abbotsbury sits at a median of $770K against $605K in Duckenfield, which makes Duckenfield the more affordable unit market and Abbotsbury the pricier one.
Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 2.81% in Abbotsbury and 2.80% in Duckenfield, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.
Rental vacancy is 5.2% in Abbotsbury and 6.3% in Duckenfield, so landlords in Abbotsbury face less competition for tenants.
Abbotsbury is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,200 against 92, roughly 46 times the size of Duckenfield; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Abbotsbury 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