Skip to main content

Abercrombie vs Beverley Park

Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Beverley Park, NSW 2217

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 3, Beverley Park wins 1. 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.

MetricAbercrombieBeverley Park
Median house price$860K-
Median unit price$455K$910K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.94%2.38%
Gross rental yield (units)5.22%-
1-year house growth+8.7%estimate+5.6%
3-year house growth-+11.5%
Vacancy rate2.6%1.2%
Population1,1272,646

Abercrombie vs Beverley Park: what the numbers say

For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $910K in Beverley Park, which makes Abercrombie the more affordable unit market and Beverley Park the pricier one.

On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 2.38% in Beverley Park, a gap of 1.56 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and +5.6% in Beverley Park, so recent momentum favours Abercrombie, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Beverley Park and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Beverley Park face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Beverley Park is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,646 against 1,127, roughly 2.3 times the size of Abercrombie; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Abercrombie for rental income, Abercrombie for recent price momentum, Beverley Park 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