Skip to main content

Abercrombie vs Woolomin

Property investment comparison - Abercrombie, NSW 2795 vs Woolomin, NSW 2340

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abercrombie wins 1, Woolomin wins 4. 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.

MetricAbercrombieWoolomin
Median house price$860K-
Median unit price$455K$360K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.94%4.78%
Gross rental yield (units)5.22%6.72%
1-year house growth+8.7%estimate+12.9%estimate
3-year house growth--
Vacancy rate2.6%3.0%
Population1,127260

Abercrombie vs Woolomin: what the numbers say

For units, Abercrombie sits at a median of $455K against $360K in Woolomin, which makes Woolomin the more affordable unit market and Abercrombie the pricier one.

On cash flow, Woolomin leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.78%, compared with 3.94% in Abercrombie, a gap of 0.84 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +8.7% in Abercrombie (an estimate) and +12.9% in Woolomin (an estimate), so recent momentum favours Woolomin, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Rental vacancy is 2.6% in Abercrombie and 3.0% in Woolomin, so landlords in Abercrombie face less competition for tenants.

Abercrombie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 1,127 against 260, roughly 4.3 times the size of Woolomin; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Woolomin for rental income, Woolomin 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