Cartwright vs Prestons, NSW Suburb Comparison

Prestons for retirees and families.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

CartwrightPrestons

Overall score

Cartwright

27.4/100

Prestons

44.7/100

Crime rate

Cartwright

72.8 / 1k

Prestons

168.6 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Cartwright

37

Prestons

186

Population

Cartwright

2,616

Prestons

15,694

Metric leadCartwright 4Prestons 81 tiedacross 13 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.

CategoryCartwrightPrestons
Overall score27.4/10044.7/100
Housing (desirability)32.6/10038.4/100
Crime rate72.8 / 1k168.6 / 1k
Schools & preschools145
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves915
Public transport stops17156
Walkability25.5/10057.0/100
Nearby amenities37186
Planning activity426
Green cover30.1%9.0%
Population2,61615,694
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)1/107/10

Comparison summary

Cartwright reads as a sought-after metro mid-sized suburb where housing reflects strong local demand; Prestons is an energetic metro established suburb where cafés and local life overlap. Cartwright sits further out with more breathing room, whereas Prestons is in a middle-ring position.

Cartwright tends to lead on a quieter safety profile, schools and education options, and a calmer planning outlook, while Prestons stands out for housing affordability, parks and reserves, and public transport access.

On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Prestons, while Cartwright 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