Abbotsford vs Mount Irvine
Property investment comparison - Abbotsford, NSW 2046 vs Mount Irvine, NSW 2786
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abbotsford wins 1, Mount Irvine wins 0. 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 | Abbotsford | Mount Irvine |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $3.5M | - |
| Median unit price | $1.4M | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 2.25% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 3.11% | - |
| 1-year house growth | +0.9%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.1% | 8.3% |
| Population | 5,431 | 22 |
Abbotsford vs Mount Irvine: what the numbers say
Rental vacancy is 1.1% in Abbotsford and 8.3% in Mount Irvine, so landlords in Abbotsford face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Abbotsford is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,431 against 22, roughly 247 times the size of Mount Irvine; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Abbotsford 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