Overall score
Bacchus Marsh
49.4/100
Balliang
49.3/100
Bacchus Marsh for retirees and investment; Balliang for schools.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Bacchus Marsh
49.4/100
Balliang
49.3/100
Crime rate
Bacchus Marsh
145.9 / 1k
Balliang
71.2 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Bacchus Marsh
278
Balliang
3
Population
Bacchus Marsh
7,808
Balliang
254
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 | Bacchus Marsh | Balliang |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 49.4/100 | 49.3/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 53.0/100 | 28.9/100 |
| Crime rate | 145.9 / 1k | 71.2 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 3 | — |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 8 | 2 |
| Public transport stops | 32 | — |
| Walkability | 100.0/100 | 0.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 278 | 3 |
| Planning activity | 73 | 11 |
| Green cover | 8.2% | 15.1% |
| Population | 7,808 | 254 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 4/10 | 7/10 |
Bacchus Marsh reads as a well-serviced metro mid-sized suburb with plenty happening nearby; Balliang is a leafier hillside smaller community with elevated outlooks. Balliang sits among greener hillside streets, while Bacchus Marsh keeps a flatter suburban layout.
Bacchus Marsh tends to lead on housing affordability, parks and reserves, and walkability, while Balliang stands out for a quieter safety profile, a calmer planning outlook, and stronger socioeconomic advantage. On housing, Bacchus Marsh sits in a well priced band, compared with a gently premium feel in Balliang.
On balance, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Bacchus Marsh, while Balliang 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.