Aberdeen vs Paxton
Property investment comparison - Aberdeen, NSW 2336 vs Paxton, NSW 2325
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aberdeen wins 2, Paxton 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 | Paxton |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $620K | - |
| Median unit price | - | $465K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.85% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 5.60% |
| 1-year house growth | +9.5% | +11.2% |
| 3-year house growth | +48.1% | +46.0% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 2.2% |
| Population | 2,051 | 1,215 |
Aberdeen vs Paxton: what the numbers say
Over the past year house prices moved +9.5% in Aberdeen and +11.2% in Paxton, so recent momentum favours Paxton, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Looking back three years, Aberdeen houses are +48.1% and Paxton houses +46.0%, so Aberdeen has compounded faster than Paxton over the longer window.
Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Aberdeen and 2.2% in Paxton, so landlords in Aberdeen 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 1,215, larger than Paxton; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Paxton for recent price momentum, Aberdeen 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