Bulgarra vs Roebourne, WA Suburb Comparison

Bulgarra for families and value; Roebourne for retirees and investment.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

BulgarraRoebourne

Overall score

Bulgarra

24.8/100

Roebourne

19.1/100

Crime rate

Bulgarra

105.5 / 1k

Roebourne

105.5 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Bulgarra

18

Roebourne

9

Population

Bulgarra

2,990

Roebourne

975

Metric leadBulgarra 7Roebourne 22 tiedacross 11 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.

CategoryBulgarraRoebourne
Overall score24.8/10019.1/100
Housing (desirability)29.4/1009.0/100
Crime rate105.5 / 1k105.5 / 1k
Schools & preschools21
Weather (desirability)0.2/1000.2/100
Parks & reserves1—
Public transport stops14
Walkability1.5/1006.0/100
Nearby amenities189
Green cover1.0%0.4%
Population2,990975
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)7/101/10

Comparison summary

Bulgarra is a regional hub with its own identity and everyday convenience, while Roebourne is a slower-paced smaller community with open surrounds.

On the data, Bulgarra is stronger for housing affordability, schools and education options, and nearby cafés and amenities; Roebourne answers with public transport access and walkability. On housing, Bulgarra sits in a expensive band, compared with a affordable feel in Roebourne.

On balance, retirees, families, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Bulgarra, while Roebourne 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