Overall score
Bangholme
36.6/100
Keysborough
51.4/100
Bangholme for families and investment; Keysborough for retirees and value.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Bangholme
36.6/100
Keysborough
51.4/100
Crime rate
Bangholme
157.8 / 1k
Keysborough
57.2 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Bangholme
5
Keysborough
288
Population
Bangholme
749
Keysborough
30,018
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 | Bangholme | Keysborough |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 36.6/100 | 51.4/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 84.3/100 | 43.0/100 |
| Crime rate | 157.8 / 1k | 57.2 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 1 | 4 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 2 | 12 |
| Public transport stops | 13 | 118 |
| Walkability | 19.5/100 | 100.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 5 | 288 |
| Planning activity | 28 | 168 |
| Green cover | 1.6% | 5.9% |
| Population | 749 | 30,018 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 1/10 | 6/10 |
Bangholme is a hillside smaller community with greener streets and a quieter pace, while Keysborough is a leafier hillside larger suburb with elevated outlooks. Bangholme sits further out with more breathing room, whereas Keysborough is in a middle-ring position.
Bangholme tends to lead on housing affordability and a calmer planning outlook, while Keysborough stands out for a quieter safety profile, schools and education options, and parks and reserves. Bangholme generally means more approachable housing costs, while Keysborough leans toward more sought-after housing.
On balance, retirees, families, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Keysborough, while Bangholme 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.