Overall score
Auldana
53.4/100
Kensington Park
62.5/100
Auldana for families and investment; Kensington Park for retirees and schools.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Auldana
53.4/100
Kensington Park
62.5/100
Crime rate
Auldana
11.5 / 1k
Kensington Park
24.2 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Auldana
7
Kensington Park
130
Population
Auldana
629
Kensington Park
2,627
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 Park |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 53.4/100 | 62.5/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 58.8/100 | 54.1/100 |
| Crime rate | 11.5 / 1k | 24.2 / 1k |
| Weather (desirability) | 37.3/100 | 37.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | — | 14 |
| Walkability | 0.0/100 | 71.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 7 | 130 |
| Planning activity | 5 | 42 |
| Green cover | 7.2% | 4.9% |
| Population | 629 | 2,627 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 10/10 |
Auldana reads as a sought-after metro smaller community where housing reflects strong local demand; Kensington Park is an energetic metro mid-sized suburb where cafés and local life overlap.
On the data, Auldana is stronger for housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and tree cover and green space; Kensington Park answers with walkability, nearby cafés and amenities, and overall desirability.
Auldana suits retirees, families, investors, and value-focused buyers more clearly, whereas Kensington Park is the stronger match for households prioritising schools.
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.