Bugle Ranges vs Meadows, SA Suburb Comparison

Meadows for retirees and families.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Bugle RangesMeadows

Overall score

Bugle Ranges

28.1/100

Meadows

52.2/100

Crime rate

Bugle Ranges

18.5 / 1k

Meadows

10.4 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Bugle Ranges

1

Meadows

51

Population

Bugle Ranges

289

Meadows

1,717

Metric leadBugle Ranges 2Meadows 71 tiedacross 10 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.

CategoryBugle RangesMeadows
Overall score28.1/10052.2/100
Housing (desirability)33.0/10056.3/100
Crime rate18.5 / 1k10.4 / 1k
Schools & preschools—2
Weather (desirability)37.3/10037.3/100
Public transport stops—5
Walkability0.0/10032.5/100
Nearby amenities151
Planning activity736
Green cover0.6%5.5%
Population2891,717
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)8/107/10

Comparison summary

Bugle Ranges reads as a leafier hillside smaller community with elevated outlooks; Meadows is a regional smaller community that feels self-contained without feeling remote. Bugle Ranges sits among greener hillside streets, while Meadows keeps a flatter suburban layout.

Bugle Ranges tends to lead on a calmer planning outlook and stronger socioeconomic advantage, while Meadows stands out for housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and walkability. On housing, Bugle Ranges sits in a gently premium band, compared with a expensive feel in Meadows.

On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Meadows, while Bugle Ranges 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.

Related comparisons