Skip to main content

Abbotsbury vs Waterfall

Property investment comparison - Abbotsbury, NSW 2176 vs Waterfall, NSW 2233

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

MetricAbbotsburyWaterfall
Median house price$1.8M-
Median unit price$770K-
Gross rental yield (houses)2.81%2.06%
Gross rental yield (units)4.36%-
1-year house growth+10.8%+7.5%
3-year house growth+22.3%+23.5%
Vacancy rate5.2%3.3%
Population4,200522

Abbotsbury vs Waterfall: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Abbotsbury leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 2.81%, compared with 2.06% in Waterfall, a gap of 0.75 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +10.8% in Abbotsbury and +7.5% in Waterfall, so recent momentum favours Abbotsbury, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Abbotsbury houses are +22.3% and Waterfall houses +23.5%, so Waterfall has compounded faster than Abbotsbury over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 3.3% in Waterfall and 5.2% in Abbotsbury, so landlords in Waterfall face less competition for tenants.

Abbotsbury is the bigger suburb, with a population of 4,200 against 522, roughly 8 times the size of Waterfall; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Abbotsbury for rental income, Abbotsbury for recent price momentum, Waterfall 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