Aberdeen vs Napoleon Reef
Property investment comparison - Aberdeen, NSW 2336 vs Napoleon Reef, NSW 2795
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aberdeen wins 1, Napoleon Reef 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.
| Metric | Aberdeen | Napoleon Reef |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $620K | - |
| Median unit price | - | $455K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.85% | 3.68% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.71% |
| 1-year house growth | +9.5% | - |
| 3-year house growth | +48.1% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 0.9% |
| Population | 2,051 | 130 |
Aberdeen vs Napoleon Reef: what the numbers say
On cash flow, Aberdeen leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.85%, compared with 3.68% in Napoleon Reef, a gap of 1.17 percentage points.
Rental vacancy is 0.9% in Napoleon Reef and 1.9% in Aberdeen, so landlords in Napoleon Reef face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Aberdeen is the bigger suburb, with a population of 2,051 against 130, roughly 16 times the size of Napoleon Reef; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Aberdeen for rental income, Napoleon Reef for the tighter rental market. Which matters more depends on whether the investor is buying for cash flow, capital growth or affordability.
Keep exploring
- National investment guide - top suburbs across every metric
- Take the suburb finder quiz - 5 questions to match your goals
- How our investment score works
- Property investment glossary - every term defined
Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs
Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.
Open interactive comparison