Cambridge Park vs Claremont Meadows, NSW Suburb Comparison

Cambridge Park for investment and value; Claremont Meadows for retirees and families.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Cambridge ParkClaremont Meadows

Overall score

Cambridge Park

41.0/100

Claremont Meadows

43.6/100

Crime rate

Cambridge Park

68.8 / 1k

Claremont Meadows

68.9 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Cambridge Park

126

Claremont Meadows

99

Population

Cambridge Park

7,054

Claremont Meadows

5,177

Metric leadCambridge Park 7Claremont Meadows 42 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.

CategoryCambridge ParkClaremont Meadows
Overall score41.0/10043.6/100
Housing (desirability)56.6/10016.1/100
Crime rate68.8 / 1k68.9 / 1k
Schools & preschools97
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves44
Public transport stops7768
Walkability57.0/10063.0/100
Nearby amenities12699
Planning activity713
Green cover9.5%27.0%
Population7,0545,177
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)2/107/10

Comparison summary

Cambridge Park reads as a hillside mid-sized suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace; Claremont Meadows is an energetic metro mid-sized suburb where cafés and local life overlap. Cambridge Park sits among greener hillside streets, while Claremont Meadows keeps a flatter suburban layout.

Cambridge Park tends to lead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and schools and education options, while Claremont Meadows stands out for walkability, overall desirability, and stronger socioeconomic advantage.

Cambridge Park suits investors and value-focused buyers more clearly, whereas Claremont Meadows is the stronger match for retirees, families, 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