Skip to main content

Abercrombie vs Terramungamine

Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Terramungamine, NSW 2830

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 1, Terramungamine 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.

MetricAbercrombieTerramungamine
Median house price$860K-
Median unit price$455K$345K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.94%3.50%
Gross rental yield (units)5.22%6.00%
1-year house growth+8.7%estimate-
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.6%1.8%
Population1,127315

Abercrombie vs Terramungamine: what the numbers say

For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $345K in Terramungamine, which makes Terramungamine 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 3.50% in Terramungamine, a gap of 0.44 percentage points.

Rental vacancy is 1.8% in Terramungamine and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Terramungamine face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 315, roughly 3.6 times the size of Terramungamine; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Abercrombie for rental income, Terramungamine 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