Bourkelands vs Mount Austin, NSW Suburb Comparison

Bourkelands for value; Mount Austin for retirees and investment.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

BourkelandsMount Austin

Overall score

Bourkelands

42.6/100

Mount Austin

43.3/100

Crime rate

Bourkelands

119.4 / 1k

Mount Austin

119.3 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Bourkelands

51

Mount Austin

48

Population

Bourkelands

3,113

Mount Austin

4,035

Metric leadBourkelands 3Mount Austin 91 tiedacross 13 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.

CategoryBourkelandsMount Austin
Overall score42.6/10043.3/100
Housing (desirability)57.2/10063.2/100
Crime rate119.4 / 1k119.3 / 1k
Schools & preschools415
Weather (desirability)11.8/10011.8/100
Parks & reserves13
Public transport stops2439
Walkability30.0/10045.0/100
Nearby amenities5148
Planning activity57
Green cover11.8%23.7%
Population3,1134,035
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)9/101/10

Comparison summary

Put side by side, Bourkelands is a regional mid-sized suburb that feels self-contained without feeling remote, and Mount Austin is a leafier hillside mid-sized suburb with elevated outlooks. Mount Austin sits among greener hillside streets, while Bourkelands keeps a flatter suburban layout.

Bourkelands tends to lead on housing affordability, nearby cafés and amenities, and a calmer planning outlook, while Mount Austin stands out for a quieter safety profile, schools and education options, and parks and reserves. On housing, Bourkelands sits in a expensive band, compared with a affordable feel in Mount Austin.

Bourkelands suits retirees more clearly, whereas Mount Austin is the stronger match for families, investors, and households prioritising schools.

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