Skip to main content

Abercrombie vs Bilbul

Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Bilbul, NSW 2680

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

MetricAbercrombieBilbul
Median house price$860K-
Median unit price$455K$395K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.94%4.59%
Gross rental yield (units)5.22%5.22%
1-year house growth+8.7%estimate-10.4%
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.6%1.0%
Population1,127586

Abercrombie vs Bilbul: what the numbers say

For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $395K in Bilbul, which makes Bilbul the more affordable unit market and Abercrombie the pricier one.

On cash flow, Bilbul leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.59%, compared with 3.94% in Abercrombie, a gap of 0.65 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and -10.4% in Bilbul, so recent momentum favours Abercrombie, while Bilbul went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Bilbul and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Bilbul face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 586, larger than Bilbul; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Bilbul for rental income, Abercrombie for recent price momentum, Bilbul 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