Overall score
Bendigo
57.5/100
Eaglehawk
41.6/100
Bendigo vs Eaglehawk, VIC Suburb Comparison
Bendigo for retirees and families; Eaglehawk for investment and value.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
BendigoEaglehawk
Crime rate
Bendigo
645.7 / 1k
Eaglehawk
95.8 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Bendigo
860
Eaglehawk
86
Population
Bendigo
5,652
Eaglehawk
5,538
Metric leadBendigo 9Eaglehawk 31 tiedacross 13 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 | Bendigo | Eaglehawk |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 57.5/100 | 41.6/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 61.3/100 | 82.0/100 |
| Crime rate | 645.7 / 1k | 95.8 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 11 | 2 |
| Weather (desirability) | 53.4/100 | 53.4/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 10 | 4 |
| Public transport stops | 82 | 48 |
| Walkability | 100.0/100 | 30.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 860 | 86 |
| Planning activity | 309 | 83 |
| Green cover | 7.7% | 7.6% |
| Population | 5,652 | 5,538 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 5/10 | 2/10 |
Comparison summary
Bendigo reads as a regional hub with its own identity and everyday convenience; Eaglehawk is a regional hub with its own identity and everyday convenience.
On the data, Bendigo is stronger for schools and education options, parks and reserves, and public transport access; Eaglehawk answers with housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and a calmer planning outlook. Bendigo generally means more approachable mid-market housing, while Eaglehawk leans toward more approachable housing costs.
Retirees, families, and households prioritising schools may find Bendigo the better fit, while investors are more likely to prefer Eaglehawk.
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.