Overall score
Ashton
54.9/100
Forest Range
40.8/100
Ashton vs Forest Range, SA Suburb Comparison
Ashton for retirees and families; Forest Range for investment.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
AshtonForest Range
Crime rate
Ashton
10.0 / 1k
Forest Range
19.6 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Ashton
8
Forest Range
2
Population
Ashton
481
Forest Range
290
Metric leadAshton 8Forest Range 11 tiedacross 10 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
- Best for retireesAshton
- Best for familiesAshton
- Best for investmentForest Range
- Best for best valueAshton
- Best for best schoolsAshton
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 | Ashton | Forest Range |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 54.9/100 | 40.8/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 65.2/100 | 37.5/100 |
| Crime rate | 10.0 / 1k | 19.6 / 1k |
| Weather (desirability) | 37.3/100 | 37.3/100 |
| Walkability | 2.0/100 | 0.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 8 | 2 |
| Planning activity | 12 | 7 |
| Green cover | 14.5% | 6.1% |
| Population | 481 | 290 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 9/10 |
Comparison summary
Ashton reads as a hillside smaller community with greener streets and a quieter pace; Forest Range is a hillside smaller community with greener streets and a quieter pace. Ashton sits in a middle-ring position, whereas Forest Range is within day-trip reach of the capital.
Ashton tends to lead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and walkability, while Forest Range stands out for a calmer planning outlook.
On balance, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Ashton, while Forest Range 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.