Overall score
Belgrave Heights
55.6/100
Tecoma
59.2/100
Belgrave Heights vs Tecoma, VIC Suburb Comparison
Belgrave Heights for retirees and families; Tecoma for investment.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
Belgrave HeightsTecoma
Crime rate
Belgrave Heights
26.2 / 1k
Tecoma
28.4 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Belgrave Heights
87
Tecoma
66
Population
Belgrave Heights
1,398
Tecoma
2,064
Metric leadBelgrave Heights 4Tecoma 71 tiedacross 12 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
- Best for retireesBelgrave Heights
- Best for familiesBelgrave Heights
- Best for investmentTecoma
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 | Belgrave Heights | Tecoma |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 55.6/100 | 59.2/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 51.4/100 | 68.3/100 |
| Crime rate | 26.2 / 1k | 28.4 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 2 | 7 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | 5 | 23 |
| Walkability | 9.5/100 | 40.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 87 | 66 |
| Planning activity | 31 | 23 |
| Green cover | 10.1% | 5.5% |
| Population | 1,398 | 2,064 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 9/10 | 8/10 |
Comparison summary
Belgrave Heights reads as a hills smaller community where tree cover and calm define the mood; Tecoma is a leafier hillside smaller community with elevated outlooks.
Belgrave Heights tends to lead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and nearby cafés and amenities, while Tecoma stands out for schools and education options, public transport access, and walkability.
On balance, retirees are more likely to prefer Belgrave Heights, while Tecoma 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.