Adelaide vs Pakenham Suburb Comparison (SA vs VIC)

Adelaide for retirees and families; Pakenham for investment and value.

See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.

Head to head

Visual comparison

AdelaidePakenham

Overall score

Adelaide

54.3/100

Pakenham

46.8/100

Crime rate

Adelaide

362.0 / 1k

Pakenham

81.1 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Adelaide

4,860

Pakenham

488

Population

Adelaide

18,202

Pakenham

54,118

Metric leadAdelaide 7Pakenham 41 tiedacross 12 compared metrics

Livability profile

Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs

Audience fit

Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100

All metrics

Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.

Full comparison table

Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.

CategoryAdelaidePakenham
Overall score54.3/10046.8/100
Housing (desirability)47.8/10055.0/100
Crime rate362.0 / 1k81.1 / 1k
Schools & preschools104
Weather (desirability)37.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves—24
Public transport stops274258
Walkability100.0/100100.0/100
Nearby amenities4,860488
Planning activity447494
Green cover27.6%4.4%
Population18,20254,118
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)9/104/10

Comparison summary

Across states, Adelaide is a well-serviced metro established suburb with plenty happening nearby, whereas Pakenham is a well-serviced metro larger suburb with plenty happening nearby. Adelaide sits closer to the city centre, whereas Pakenham is in a middle-ring position.

Adelaide tends to lead on schools and education options, public transport access, and nearby cafés and amenities, while Pakenham stands out for housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and overall desirability. On housing, Adelaide sits in a expensive band, compared with a gently premium feel in Pakenham.

On balance, investors and value-focused buyers are more likely to prefer Pakenham, while Adelaide remains a solid alternative depending on what matters most day to day.

Generated from the official metrics on this page. It can omit nuance or contain errors — check the tables and source notes before relying on it.

Related comparisons