Skip to main content

Abercrombie vs Woodcroft

Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Woodcroft, NSW 2767

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 4, Woodcroft 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.

MetricAbercrombieWoodcroft
Median house price$860K-
Median unit price$455K$890K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.94%3.57%
Gross rental yield (units)5.22%4.54%
1-year house growth+8.7%estimate+0.4%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.6%1.0%
Population1,1276,597

Abercrombie vs Woodcroft: what the numbers say

For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $890K in Woodcroft, which makes Abercrombie the more affordable unit market and Woodcroft the pricier one.

On cash flow, Abercrombie leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 3.94%, compared with 3.57% in Woodcroft, a gap of 0.37 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and +0.4% in Woodcroft (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Abercrombie, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 1.0% in Woodcroft and 2.6% in Abercrombie, so landlords in Woodcroft face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Woodcroft is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,597 against 1,127, roughly 6 times the size of Abercrombie; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Abercrombie for rental income, Abercrombie for recent price momentum, Woodcroft 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