Skip to main content

Abbotsbury vs Millers Forest

Property investment comparison - Abbotsbury, NSW 2176 vs Millers Forest, NSW 2324

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abbotsbury wins 1, Millers Forest 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.

MetricAbbotsburyMillers Forest
Median house price$1.8M-
Median unit price$770K$530K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.81%2.70%
Gross rental yield (units)4.36%5.00%
1-year house growth+10.8%-
3-year house growth+22.3%-
Vacancy rate5.2%1.4%
Population4,200357

Abbotsbury vs Millers Forest: what the numbers say

For units, Abbotsbury sits at a median of $770K against $530K in Millers Forest, which makes Millers Forest the more affordable unit market and Abbotsbury the pricier one.

On cash flow, Abbotsbury leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.81%, compared with 2.70% in Millers Forest, a gap of 0.11 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.4% in Millers Forest and 5.2% in Abbotsbury, so landlords in Millers Forest 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 357, roughly 12 times the size of Millers Forest; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Abbotsbury for rental income, Millers Forest for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison