Overall score
Breakfast Point
54.4/100
Chiswick
54.8/100
Breakfast Point vs Chiswick, NSW Suburb Comparison
Chiswick for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
Breakfast PointChiswick
Crime rate
Breakfast Point
29.6 / 1k
Chiswick
34.0 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Breakfast Point
30
Chiswick
30
Population
Breakfast Point
4,678
Chiswick
2,909
Metric leadBreakfast Point 4Chiswick 63 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 | Breakfast Point | Chiswick |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 54.4/100 | 54.8/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 53.3/100 | 55.3/100 |
| Crime rate | 29.6 / 1k | 34.0 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 5 | 7 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 3 | 4 |
| Public transport stops | 4 | 18 |
| Walkability | 33.0/100 | 27.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 30 | 30 |
| Planning activity | 2 | 9 |
| Green cover | 6.7% | 20.2% |
| Population | 4,678 | 2,909 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 10/10 |
Comparison summary
Put side by side, Breakfast Point is a metro mid-sized suburb with a gently premium housing feel and familiar suburban calm, and Chiswick is a metro mid-sized suburb with a gently premium housing feel and familiar suburban calm.
Breakfast Point tends to lead on a quieter safety profile, walkability, and overall desirability, while Chiswick stands out for housing affordability, schools and education options, and parks and reserves.
On balance, households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Chiswick, while Breakfast Point 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.