Chidlow vs Mount Helena, WA Suburb Comparison

Chidlow for retirees and families; Mount Helena for investment and schools.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

ChidlowMount Helena

Overall score

Chidlow

45.7/100

Mount Helena

42.1/100

Crime rate

Chidlow

43.1 / 1k

Mount Helena

43.1 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Chidlow

31

Mount Helena

0

Population

Chidlow

1,821

Mount Helena

3,373

Metric leadChidlow 4Mount Helena 52 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.

CategoryChidlowMount Helena
Overall score45.7/10042.1/100
Housing (desirability)54.5/10055.5/100
Crime rate43.1 / 1k43.1 / 1k
Schools & preschools12
Weather (desirability)23.4/10023.4/100
Parks & reserves—1
Public transport stops2748
Walkability34.0/10030.0/100
Nearby amenities310
Green cover60.6%45.6%
Population1,8213,373
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)6/107/10

Comparison summary

Put side by side, Chidlow is a leafier hillside smaller community with elevated outlooks, and Mount Helena is a hillside mid-sized suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace. Chidlow sits within day-trip reach of the capital, whereas Mount Helena is further out with more breathing room.

Chidlow tends to lead on walkability, plus nearby cafés and amenities, while Mount Helena stands out for housing affordability, schools and education options, and public transport access. Chidlow generally means more mid-market housing value, while Mount Helena 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 Mount Helena, while Chidlow 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