Abercrombie vs Fassifern
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Fassifern, NSW 2283
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 1, Fassifern wins 2. 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 | Fassifern |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 4.26% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | +11.1% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +26.7% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 1.5% |
| Population | 1,127 | 586 |
Abercrombie vs Fassifern: what the numbers say
Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and +11.1% in Fassifern, so recent momentum favours Fassifern, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Fassifern and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Fassifern 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 Fassifern; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Fassifern for recent price momentum, Fassifern 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