Abercrombie vs Duckenfield
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Duckenfield, NSW 2321
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 4, Duckenfield 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 | Duckenfield |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | $605K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | 2.80% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 4.87% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 6.3% |
| Population | 1,127 | 92 |
Abercrombie vs Duckenfield: what the numbers say
For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $605K in Duckenfield, which makes Abercrombie the more affordable unit market and Duckenfield the pricier one.
On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 2.80% in Duckenfield, a gap of 1.14 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.6% in Abercrombie and 6.3% in Duckenfield, so landlords in Abercrombie face less competition for tenants.
Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 92, roughly 12 times the size of Duckenfield; 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.
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