Cardinia vs Pakenham, VIC Suburb Comparison

Pakenham for retirees and families.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

CardiniaPakenham

Overall score

Cardinia

26.5/100

Pakenham

46.8/100

Crime rate

Cardinia

162.2 / 1k

Pakenham

81.1 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Cardinia

32

Pakenham

488

Population

Cardinia

342

Pakenham

54,118

Metric leadCardinia 2Pakenham 81 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.

CategoryCardiniaPakenham
Overall score26.5/10046.8/100
Housing (desirability)51.5/10055.0/100
Crime rate162.2 / 1k81.1 / 1k
Schools & preschools14
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves—24
Public transport stops—258
Walkability0.0/100100.0/100
Nearby amenities32488
Planning activity5494
Green cover0.3%4.4%
Population34254,118
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)6/104/10

Comparison summary

Put side by side, Cardinia is a settled metro smaller community that balances access with everyday calm, and Pakenham is a well-serviced metro larger suburb with plenty happening nearby. Cardinia sits further out with more breathing room, whereas Pakenham is in a middle-ring position.

Cardinia pulls ahead on a calmer planning outlook and stronger socioeconomic advantage, whereas Pakenham is the better pick for housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and schools and education options. Cardinia generally means more mid-market housing value, while Pakenham leans toward housing toward the upper end of the market.

On balance, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Pakenham, while Cardinia 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