Skip to main content

Abercrombie vs Table Top

Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Table Top, NSW 2640

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 2, Table Top 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.

MetricAbercrombieTable Top
Median house price$860K-
Median unit price$455K$385K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.94%2.10%
Gross rental yield (units)5.22%5.32%
1-year house growth+8.7%estimate+16.7%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.6%3.5%
Population1,1271,516

Abercrombie vs Table Top: what the numbers say

For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $385K in Table Top, which makes Table Top the more affordable unit market and Abercrombie the pricier one.

On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 2.10% in Table Top, a gap of 1.84 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and +16.7% in Table Top (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Table Top, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 2.6% in Abercrombie and 3.5% in Table Top, so landlords in Abercrombie face less competition for tenants.

Table Top is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,516 against 1,127, larger than Abercrombie; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Abercrombie for rental income, Table Top for recent price momentum, 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

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

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

Open interactive comparison