Auldana vs Kensington Park, SA Suburb Comparison

Auldana for families and investment; Kensington Park for retirees and schools.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

AuldanaKensington Park

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

Metric leadAuldana 4Kensington Park 42 tiedacross 10 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.

CategoryAuldanaKensington Park
Overall score53.4/10062.5/100
Housing (desirability)58.8/10054.1/100
Crime rate11.5 / 1k24.2 / 1k
Weather (desirability)37.3/10037.3/100
Public transport stops—14
Walkability0.0/10071.0/100
Nearby amenities7130
Planning activity542
Green cover7.2%4.9%
Population6292,627
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)10/1010/10

Comparison summary

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.

Related comparisons