Aberdeen vs Woolwich
Property investment comparison - Aberdeen, NSW 2336 vs Woolwich, NSW 2110
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aberdeen wins 2, Woolwich 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 | Woolwich |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $620K | - |
| Median unit price | - | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 4.85% | 2.76% |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.69% |
| 1-year house growth | +9.5% | -23.4% |
| 3-year house growth | +48.1% | - |
| Vacancy rate | 1.9% | 1.2% |
| Population | 2,051 | 833 |
Aberdeen vs Woolwich: what the numbers say
On cash flow, Aberdeen leads: houses there return a gross rental yield of 4.85%, compared with 2.76% in Woolwich, a gap of 2.09 percentage points.
Over the past year house prices moved +9.5% in Aberdeen and -23.4% in Woolwich, so recent momentum favours Aberdeen, while Woolwich went backwards.
Rental vacancy is 1.2% in Woolwich and 1.9% in Aberdeen, so landlords in Woolwich 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 833, roughly 2.5 times the size of Woolwich; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Aberdeen for rental income, Aberdeen for recent price momentum, Woolwich 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