Abbotsbury vs Duramana
Property investment comparison - Abbotsbury, NSW 2176 vs Duramana, NSW 2795
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abbotsbury wins 0, Duramana 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 | Abbotsbury | Duramana |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.8M | - |
| Median unit price | $770K | $445K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.81% | 2.81% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.36% | 5.66% |
| 1-year house growth | +10.8% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +22.3% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 5.2% | 0.8% |
| Population | 4,200 | 248 |
Abbotsbury vs Duramana: what the numbers say
For units, Abbotsbury sits at a median of $770K against $445K in Duramana, which makes Duramana the more affordable unit market and Abbotsbury the pricier one.
Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 2.81% in Abbotsbury and 2.81% in Duramana, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Duramana and 5.2% in Abbotsbury, so landlords in Duramana face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Abbotsbury is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,200 against 248, roughly 17 times the size of Duramana; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Duramana 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