Ballan vs Mount Egerton, VIC Suburb Comparison

Ballan for families and investment; Mount Egerton for schools.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

BallanMount Egerton

Overall score

Ballan

52.0/100

Mount Egerton

49.3/100

Crime rate

Ballan

87.1 / 1k

Mount Egerton

41.6 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Ballan

52

Mount Egerton

2

Population

Ballan

3,392

Mount Egerton

706

Metric leadBallan 8Mount Egerton 41 tiedacross 13 compared metrics

Livability profile

Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs

Quick verdicts

Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)

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.

CategoryBallanMount Egerton
Overall score52.0/10049.3/100
Housing (desirability)59.5/10044.4/100
Crime rate87.1 / 1k41.6 / 1k
Schools & preschools21
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves82
Public transport stops136
Walkability79.5/1009.0/100
Nearby amenities522
Planning activity7935
Green cover8.1%12.4%
Population3,392706
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)5/107/10

Comparison summary

Ballan is a hillside mid-sized suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace, while Mount Egerton is a hillside smaller community with greener streets and a quieter pace.

Ballan pulls ahead on housing affordability, schools and education options, and parks and reserves, whereas Mount Egerton is the better pick for a quieter safety profile, a calmer planning outlook, and stronger socioeconomic advantage. Ballan generally means more approachable mid-market housing, while Mount Egerton leans toward housing toward the upper end of the market.

Ballan suits investors and value-focused buyers more clearly, whereas Mount Egerton is the stronger match for retirees, families, and 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