Abercrombie vs Coalcliff
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Coalcliff, NSW 2508
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 3, Coalcliff 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.
| Metric | Abercrombie | Coalcliff |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | $910K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | 2.89% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 4.08% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 1.6% |
| Population | 1,127 | 212 |
Abercrombie vs Coalcliff: what the numbers say
For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $910K in Coalcliff, which makes Abercrombie the more affordable unit market and Coalcliff the pricier one.
On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 2.89% in Coalcliff, a gap of 1.05 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 1.6% in Coalcliff and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Coalcliff 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 212, roughly 5 times the size of Coalcliff; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Abercrombie for rental income, Coalcliff 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