Overall score
Auldana
53.4/100
Kensington Gardens
56.7/100
Auldana for families and investment; Kensington Gardens for retirees.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Auldana
53.4/100
Kensington Gardens
56.7/100
Crime rate
Auldana
11.5 / 1k
Kensington Gardens
22.7 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Auldana
7
Kensington Gardens
130
Population
Auldana
629
Kensington Gardens
2,498
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100
Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.
Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.
| Category | Auldana | Kensington Gardens |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 53.4/100 | 56.7/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 58.8/100 | 56.8/100 |
| Crime rate | 11.5 / 1k | 22.7 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | — | 1 |
| Weather (desirability) | 37.3/100 | 37.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | — | 13 |
| Walkability | 0.0/100 | 63.5/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 7 | 130 |
| Planning activity | 5 | 41 |
| Green cover | 7.2% | 15.0% |
| Population | 629 | 2,498 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 10/10 |
Put side by side, Auldana is a sought-after metro smaller community where housing reflects strong local demand, and Kensington Gardens is an energetic metro smaller community where cafés and local life overlap.
Auldana tends to lead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and overall desirability, while Kensington Gardens stands out for walkability, nearby cafés and amenities, and tree cover and green space.
On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Auldana, while Kensington Gardens 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.