Aberdeen vs Swansea
Property investment comparison - Aberdeen, NSW 2336 vs Swansea, NSW 2281
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aberdeen wins 1, Swansea wins 2. 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 | Swansea |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $620K | - |
| Median unit price | - | $790K |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.85% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | - |
| 1-year house growth | +9.5% | +15.0% |
| 3-year house growth | +48.1% | +21.6% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 1.7% |
| Population | 2,051 | 5,044 |
Aberdeen vs Swansea: what the numbers say
Over the past year house prices moved +9.5% in Aberdeen and +15.0% in Swansea, so recent momentum favours Swansea, although both suburbs recorded growth.
Looking back three years, Aberdeen houses are +48.1% and Swansea houses +21.6%, so Aberdeen has compounded faster than Swansea over the longer window.
Rental vacancy is 1.7% in Swansea and 1.9% in Aberdeen, so landlords in Swansea face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Swansea is the bigger suburb, with a population of 5,044 against 2,051, roughly 2.5 times the size of Aberdeen; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Swansea for recent price momentum, Swansea 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