Aberfeldie vs Foster
Property investment comparison - Aberfeldie, VIC 3040 vs Foster, VIC 3960
Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Aberfeldie wins 0, Foster 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 | Aberfeldie | Foster |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1.8M | - |
| Median unit price | $685K | - |
| Gross rental yield (houses) | 1.98% | - |
| Gross rental yield (units) | - | 4.53% |
| 1-year house growth | -0.7%estimate | +1.8% |
| 3-year house growth | - | -9.3% |
| Vacancy rate | 1.5% | 1.4% |
| Population | 3,925 | 2,044 |
Aberfeldie vs Foster: what the numbers say
Over the past year house prices moved -0.7% in Aberfeldie (an estimate) and +1.8% in Foster, so recent momentum favours Foster, while Aberfeldie went backwards.
Rental vacancy is 1.4% in Foster and 1.5% in Aberfeldie, so landlords in Foster face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.
Aberfeldie is the bigger suburb, with a population of 3,925 against 2,044, larger than Foster; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.
In short: Foster for recent price momentum, Foster 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