Overall score
Beckenham
47.9/100
Maddington
39.8/100
Beckenham vs Maddington, WA Suburb Comparison
Beckenham for investment and value.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
BeckenhamMaddington
Crime rate
Beckenham
75.2 / 1k
Maddington
61.8 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Beckenham
622
Maddington
274
Population
Beckenham
9,092
Maddington
12,419
Metric leadBeckenham 7Maddington 41 tiedacross 12 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.
| Category | Beckenham | Maddington |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 47.9/100 | 39.8/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 43.0/100 | 39.0/100 |
| Crime rate | 75.2 / 1k | 61.8 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 6 | 7 |
| Weather (desirability) | 23.4/100 | 23.4/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 23 | 9 |
| Public transport stops | 56 | 95 |
| Walkability | 100.0/100 | 63.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 622 | 274 |
| Planning activity | 1 | — |
| Green cover | 8.7% | 8.2% |
| Population | 9,092 | 12,419 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 4/10 | 2/10 |
Comparison summary
Put side by side, Beckenham is a well-serviced metro established suburb with plenty happening nearby, and Maddington is a lively metro established suburb with dining and everyday convenience close by.
On the data, Beckenham is stronger for parks and reserves, walkability, and nearby cafés and amenities; Maddington answers with a quieter safety profile, schools and education options, and public transport access.
On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Beckenham, while Maddington 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.