Skip to main content

Aberdeen vs Razorback

Property investment comparison - Aberdeen, NSW 2336 vs Razorback, NSW 2571

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aberdeen wins 4, Razorback wins 0. 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.

MetricAberdeenRazorback
Median house price$620K-
Median unit price-$670K
Gross rental yield (houses)4.85%1.65%
Gross rental yield (units)-2.28%
1-year house growth+9.5%+9.1%
3-year house growth+48.1%+12.3%
Vacancy rate1.9%3.1%
Population2,0511,174

Aberdeen vs Razorback: what the numbers say

On cash flow, Aberdeen leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.85%, compared with 1.65% in Razorback, a gap of 3.20 percentage points.

Over the past year house prices moved +9.5% in Aberdeen and +9.1% in Razorback, so recent momentum favours Aberdeen, although both suburbs recorded growth.

Looking back three years, Aberdeen houses are +48.1% and Razorback houses +12.3%, so Aberdeen has compounded faster than Razorback over the longer window.

Rental vacancy is 1.9% in Aberdeen and 3.1% in Razorback, 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 1,174, larger than Razorback; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Aberdeen for rental income, Aberdeen 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

Compare any 2-4 Australian suburbs

Build your own multi-suburb comparison with the full interactive tool.

Open interactive comparison