Skip to main content

Abington vs Bundamba

Property investment comparison - Abington, QLD 4660 vs Bundamba, QLD 4304

Head-to-head across core investment metrics: Abington wins 2, Bundamba wins 3. 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.

MetricAbingtonBundamba
Median house price$810K$805K
Median unit price$210K$655K
Gross rental yield (houses)3.79%3.80%
Gross rental yield (units)6.17%3.51%
1-year house growth-+22.0%
3-year house growth-+70.3%
Vacancy rate1.9%1.5%
Population606,542

Abington vs Bundamba: what the numbers say

The median house price is $810K in Abington and $805K in Bundamba, so Bundamba is the cheaper entry point, with Abington houses about 1% dearer.

For units, Abington sits at a median of $210K against $655K in Bundamba, which makes Abington the more affordable unit market and Bundamba the pricier one.

Gross rental yield on houses is effectively level, at 3.79% in Abington and 3.80% in Bundamba, so neither suburb has a cash flow edge on houses.

Rental vacancy is 1.5% in Bundamba and 1.9% in Abington, so landlords in Bundamba face less competition for tenants. Anything under 2% is generally read as a tight market where tenants compete for homes.

Bundamba is the bigger suburb, with a population of 6,542 against 60, roughly 109 times the size of Abington; a larger suburb usually means a deeper pool of buyers and tenants.

In short: Bundamba for a lower purchase price, Bundamba 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