Baulkham Hills vs Buderim Suburb Comparison (NSW vs QLD)

Baulkham Hills for retirees and investment; Buderim for families and value.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Baulkham HillsBuderim

Overall score

Baulkham Hills

66.9/100

Buderim

61.6/100

Crime rate

Baulkham Hills

22.1 / 1k

Buderim

22.7 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Baulkham Hills

339

Buderim

154

Population

Baulkham Hills

37,415

Buderim

31,430

Metric leadBaulkham Hills 9Buderim 21 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.

CategoryBaulkham HillsBuderim
Overall score66.9/10061.6/100
Housing (desirability)50.3/10070.5/100
Crime rate22.1 / 1k22.7 / 1k
Schools & preschools122
Weather (desirability)82.3/10031.2/100
Parks & reserves2459
Public transport stops46078
Walkability84.0/10084.0/100
Nearby amenities339154
Planning activity78—
Green cover14.1%6.1%
Population37,41531,430
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)10/108/10

Comparison summary

Baulkham Hills (NSW) is a hillside larger suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace, while Buderim (QLD) is an energetic metro larger suburb where cafés and local life overlap. Baulkham Hills sits among greener hillside streets, while Buderim keeps a flatter suburban layout.

Baulkham Hills tends to lead on schools and education options, public transport access, and nearby cafés and amenities, while Buderim stands out for housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and parks and reserves.

On balance, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Buderim, while Baulkham Hills 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.

Related comparisons