Abbotsbury vs Paxton
Property investment comparison - Abbotsbury, NSW 2176 vs Paxton, NSW 2325
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abbotsbury wins 0, Paxton wins 5. 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 | Paxton |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.8M | - |
| Median unit price | $770K | $465K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.81% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 4.36% | 5.60% |
| 1-year house growth | +10.8% | +11.2% |
| 3-year house growth | +22.3% | +46.0% |
| Vacancy rate | 5.2% | 2.2% |
| Population | 4,200 | 1,215 |
Abbotsbury vs Paxton: what the numbers say
For units, Abbotsbury sits at a median of $770K against $465K in Paxton, which makes Paxton the more affordable unit market and Abbotsbury the pricier one.
Over the past year house prices moved +10.8% in Abbotsbury and +11.2% in Paxton, so recent momentum favours Paxton, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Looking back three years, Abbotsbury houses are +22.3% and Paxton houses +46.0%, so Paxton has compounded faster than Abbotsbury over the longer window.
Rental vacancy is 2.2% in Paxton and 5.2% in Abbotsbury, so landlords in Paxton face less competition for tenants.
Abbotsbury is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,200 against 1,215, roughly 3.5 times the size of Paxton; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Paxton for recent price momentum, Paxton 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