Abercrombie vs Howards Grass
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Howards Grass, NSW 2480
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 2, Howards Grass 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 | Howards Grass |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | $450K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | 4.76% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 4.86% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 5.2% |
| Population | 1,127 | 78 |
Abercrombie vs Howards Grass: what the numbers say
For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $450K in Howards Grass, which makes Howards Grass the more affordable unit market and Abercrombie the pricier one.
On cash flow, Howards Grass leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.76%, compared with 3.94% in Abercrombie, a gap of 0.82 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.6% in Abercrombie and 5.2% in Howards Grass, so landlords in Abercrombie face less competition for tenants.
Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 78, roughly 14 times the size of Howards Grass; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Howards Grass 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