Avonsleigh vs Pakenham Upper, VIC Suburb Comparison

Avonsleigh for families; Pakenham Upper for value and schools.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

AvonsleighPakenham Upper

Overall score

Avonsleigh

54.9/100

Pakenham Upper

62.0/100

Crime rate

Avonsleigh

3.5 / 1k

Pakenham Upper

29.5 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Avonsleigh

3

Pakenham Upper

10

Population

Avonsleigh

844

Pakenham Upper

1,196

Metric leadAvonsleigh 4Pakenham Upper 71 tiedacross 12 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.

CategoryAvonsleighPakenham Upper
Overall score54.9/10062.0/100
Housing (desirability)56.8/10051.6/100
Crime rate3.5 / 1k29.5 / 1k
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves15
Public transport stops213
Walkability3.0/10019.5/100
Nearby amenities310
Planning activity2038
Green cover17.5%17.3%
Population8441,196
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)8/1010/10

Comparison summary

Avonsleigh is a sought-after metro smaller community where housing reflects strong local demand, while Pakenham Upper is a leafier hillside smaller community with elevated outlooks. Pakenham Upper sits among greener hillside streets, while Avonsleigh keeps a flatter suburban layout.

Avonsleigh pulls ahead on a quieter safety profile and a calmer planning outlook, whereas Pakenham Upper is the better pick for housing affordability, parks and reserves, and public transport access. On housing, Avonsleigh sits in a gently premium band, compared with a expensive feel in Pakenham Upper.

Households prioritising schools may find Avonsleigh the better fit, while retirees, families, investors, and value-focused buyers are more likely to prefer Pakenham Upper.

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