Abercrombie vs Hanging Rock
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Hanging Rock, NSW 2340
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 0, Hanging Rock wins 4. 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 | Hanging Rock |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | $365K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | 4.81% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 7.88% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 2.0% |
| Population | 1,127 | 98 |
Abercrombie vs Hanging Rock: what the numbers say
For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $365K in Hanging Rock, which makes Hanging Rock the more affordable unit market and Abercrombie the pricier one.
On cash flow, Hanging Rock leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.81%, compared with 3.94% in Abercrombie, a gap of 0.87 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.0% in Hanging Rock and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Hanging Rock face less competition for tenants.
Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 98, roughly 12 times the size of Hanging Rock; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Hanging Rock for rental income, Hanging Rock 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