Abercrombie vs Forest Grove
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Forest Grove, NSW 2795
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 1, Forest Grove wins 3. 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 | Forest Grove |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | $445K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | 2.77% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 5.58% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 0.8% |
| Population | 1,127 | 115 |
Abercrombie vs Forest Grove: what the numbers say
For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $445K in Forest Grove, which makes Forest Grove the more affordable unit market and Abercrombie the pricier one.
On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 2.77% in Forest Grove, a gap of 1.17 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.8% in Forest Grove and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Forest Grove 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 115, roughly 10 times the size of Forest Grove; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Abercrombie for rental income, Forest Grove 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