Overall score
Baulkham Hills
66.9/100
Devonport
52.1/100
Baulkham Hills for retirees and families; Devonport for investment and value.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Baulkham Hills
66.9/100
Devonport
52.1/100
Crime rate
Baulkham Hills
22.1 / 1k
Devonport
54.0 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Baulkham Hills
339
Devonport
331
Population
Baulkham Hills
37,415
Devonport
14,481
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 | Baulkham Hills | Devonport |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 66.9/100 | 52.1/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 50.3/100 | 79.6/100 |
| Crime rate | 22.1 / 1k | 54.0 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 12 | 10 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 24 | 4 |
| Public transport stops | 460 | 73 |
| Walkability | 84.0/100 | 100.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 339 | 331 |
| Planning activity | 78 | — |
| Green cover | 14.1% | 3.4% |
| Population | 37,415 | 14,481 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 1/10 |
Across states, Baulkham Hills is a hillside larger suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace, whereas Devonport is a regional hub with its own identity and everyday convenience. Baulkham Hills sits among greener hillside streets, while Devonport keeps a flatter suburban layout.
On the data, Baulkham Hills is stronger for a quieter safety profile, schools and education options, and parks and reserves; Devonport answers with housing affordability, walkability, and overall desirability. Baulkham Hills generally means more sought-after housing, while Devonport leans toward more approachable housing costs.
Choose Baulkham Hills if you are weighing retirees, families, and households prioritising schools; lean toward Devonport for investors and value-focused buyers.
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.