Skip to main content

Abercrombie vs Couridjah

Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Couridjah, NSW 2571

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 4, Couridjah 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.

MetricAbercrombieCouridjah
Median house price$860K-
Median unit price$455K$670K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.94%1.88%
Gross rental yield (units)5.22%2.02%
1-year house growth+8.7%estimate+5.3%
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.6%2.3%
Population1,127282

Abercrombie vs Couridjah: what the numbers say

For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $670K in Couridjah, which makes Abercrombie the more affordable unit market and Couridjah the pricier one.

On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 1.88% in Couridjah, a gap of 2.06 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and +5.3% in Couridjah, so recent momentum favours Abercrombie, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 2.3% in Couridjah and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Couridjah face less competition for tenants.

Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 282, roughly 4.0 times the size of Couridjah; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

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