Cambridge Gardens vs Jordan Springs, NSW Suburb Comparison

Cambridge Gardens for families and investment; Jordan Springs for retirees and schools.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Cambridge GardensJordan Springs

Overall score

Cambridge Gardens

45.1/100

Jordan Springs

41.5/100

Crime rate

Cambridge Gardens

68.7 / 1k

Jordan Springs

68.9 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Cambridge Gardens

51

Jordan Springs

138

Population

Cambridge Gardens

2,030

Jordan Springs

11,772

Metric leadCambridge Gardens 6Jordan Springs 51 tiedacross 12 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.

CategoryCambridge GardensJordan Springs
Overall score45.1/10041.5/100
Housing (desirability)52.2/10042.6/100
Crime rate68.7 / 1k68.9 / 1k
Schools & preschools62
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves—2
Public transport stops2574
Walkability63.0/10030.0/100
Nearby amenities51138
Planning activity221
Green cover9.4%50.2%
Population2,03011,772
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)5/1010/10

Comparison summary

Put side by side, Cambridge Gardens is a leafier hillside smaller community with elevated outlooks, and Jordan Springs is a well-serviced metro established suburb with plenty happening nearby. Cambridge Gardens sits among greener hillside streets, while Jordan Springs keeps a flatter suburban layout.

On the data, Cambridge Gardens is stronger for a quieter safety profile, schools and education options, and walkability; Jordan Springs answers with public transport access, nearby cafés and amenities, and overall desirability.

Choose Cambridge Gardens if you are weighing families and households prioritising schools; lean toward Jordan Springs for retirees and investors.

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