Abercrombie vs Chilcotts Grass
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Chilcotts Grass, NSW 2480
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 3, Chilcotts Grass 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 | Abercrombie | Chilcotts Grass |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | $455K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | 2.35% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 4.72% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 5.1% |
| Population | 1,127 | 237 |
Abercrombie vs Chilcotts Grass: what the numbers say
On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 2.35% in Chilcotts Grass, a gap of 1.59 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.6% in Abercrombie and 5.1% in Chilcotts Grass, so landlords in Abercrombie face less competition for tenants.
Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 237, roughly 4.8 times the size of Chilcotts Grass; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Abercrombie for rental income, Abercrombie for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Full profile
Chilcotts Grass, NSW 2480
Open Chilcotts Grass suburb profileRecent sales in Chilcotts Grass
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