Overall score
Ardross
57.7/100
Winthrop
51.5/100
Ardross vs Winthrop, WA Suburb Comparison
Ardross for retirees; Winthrop for investment and value.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
ArdrossWinthrop
Crime rate
Ardross
53.7 / 1k
Winthrop
53.7 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Ardross
163
Winthrop
143
Population
Ardross
4,578
Winthrop
6,020
Metric leadArdross 5Winthrop 43 tiedacross 12 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
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.
| Category | Ardross | Winthrop |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 57.7/100 | 51.5/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 47.5/100 | 51.4/100 |
| Crime rate | 53.7 / 1k | 53.7 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 7 | 5 |
| Weather (desirability) | 23.4/100 | 23.4/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 7 | 6 |
| Public transport stops | 20 | 37 |
| Walkability | 75.0/100 | 53.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 163 | 143 |
| Green cover | 20.6% | 24.9% |
| Population | 4,578 | 6,020 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 10/10 |
Comparison summary
Ardross reads as a lively metro mid-sized suburb with dining and everyday convenience close by; Winthrop is an energetic metro mid-sized suburb where cafés and local life overlap. Ardross sits closer to the city centre, whereas Winthrop is in a middle-ring position.
On the data, Ardross is stronger for schools and education options, parks and reserves, and walkability; Winthrop answers with housing affordability, public transport access, and overall desirability.
On balance, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Winthrop, while Ardross 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.