Abercrombie vs Paxton
Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Paxton, NSW 2325
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 1, Paxton 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 | Paxton |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $860K | - |
| Median unit price | $455K | $465K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 3.94% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | 5.22% | 5.60% |
| 1-year house growth | +8.7%estimate | +11.2% |
| 3-year house growth | - | +46.0% |
| Vacancy rate | 2.6% | 2.2% |
| Population | 1,127 | 1,215 |
Abercrombie vs Paxton: what the numbers say
For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $465K in Paxton, which makes Abercrombie the more affordable unit market and Paxton the pricier one.
Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and +11.2% in Paxton, so recent momentum favours Paxton, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Rental vacancy is 2.2% in Paxton and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Paxton face less competition for tenants.
Paxton is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,215 against 1,127, larger than Abercrombie; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Paxton for recent price momentum, Paxton 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