Skip to main content

Abercrombie vs Sutton Forest

Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Sutton Forest, NSW 2577

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 3, Sutton Forest 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.

MetricAbercrombieSutton Forest
Median house price$860K-
Median unit price$455K$650K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.94%1.79%
Gross rental yield (units)5.22%5.59%
1-year house growth+8.7%estimate-7.0%
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.6%2.3%
Population1,127504

Abercrombie vs Sutton Forest: what the numbers say

For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $650K in Sutton Forest, which makes Abercrombie the more affordable unit market and Sutton Forest the pricier one.

On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 1.79% in Sutton Forest, a gap of 2.15 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and -7.0% in Sutton Forest, so recent momentum favours Abercrombie, while Sutton Forest went backwards.

Rental vacancy is 2.3% in Sutton Forest and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Sutton Forest face less competition for tenants.

Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 504, roughly 2.2 times the size of Sutton Forest; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Abercrombie for rental income, Abercrombie for recent price momentum, Sutton Forest for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.

Keep exploring

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison