Skip to main content

Abbotsbury vs Swansea

Property investment comparison - Abbotsbury, NSW 2176 vs Swansea, NSW 2281

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abbotsbury wins 2, Swansea 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.

MetricAbbotsburySwansea
Median house price$1.8M-
Median unit price$770K$790K
Gross rental yield (houses)2.81%-
Gross rental yield (units)4.36%-
1-year house growth+10.8%+15.0%
3-year house growth+22.3%+21.6%
Vacancy rate5.2%1.7%
Population4,2005,044

Abbotsbury vs Swansea: what the numbers say

For units, Abbotsbury sits at a median of $770K against $790K in Swansea, which makes Abbotsbury the more affordable unit market and Swansea the pricier one.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.8% in Abbotsbury and +15.0% in Swansea, so recent momentum favours Swansea, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Abbotsbury houses are +22.3% and Swansea houses +21.6%, so Abbotsbury has compounded faster than Swansea over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.7% in Swansea and 5.2% in Abbotsbury, so landlords in Swansea face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Swansea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,044 against 4,200, larger than Abbotsbury; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Swansea for recent price momentum, Swansea 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