Abercrombie vs Kembla Grange
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Kembla Grange, NSW 2526
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 3, Kembla Grange wins 1. 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 | Kembla Grange |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | $755K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | 4.06% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 4.44% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | - |
| 3-year house growth | - | - |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 3.6% |
| Population | 1,127 | 1,452 |
Abercrombie vs Kembla Grange: what the numbers say
For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $755K in Kembla Grange, which makes Abercrombie the more affordable unit market and Kembla Grange the pricier one.
On cash flow, Kembla Grange leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.06%, compared with 3.94% in Abercrombie, a gap of 0.12 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 2.6% in Abercrombie and 3.6% in Kembla Grange, so landlords in Abercrombie face less competition for tenants.
Kembla Grange is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,452 against 1,127, larger than Abercrombie; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Kembla Grange 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