Overall score
Chipping Norton
48.0/100
Voyager Point
55.4/100
Chipping Norton for investment and schools; Voyager Point for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Chipping Norton
48.0/100
Voyager Point
55.4/100
Crime rate
Chipping Norton
168.6 / 1k
Voyager Point
13.0 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Chipping Norton
124
Voyager Point
29
Population
Chipping Norton
9,412
Voyager Point
1,678
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100
Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.
Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.
| Category | Chipping Norton | Voyager Point |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 48.0/100 | 55.4/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 45.0/100 | 41.5/100 |
| Crime rate | 168.6 / 1k | 13.0 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 7 | 5 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 28 | 1 |
| Public transport stops | 109 | 21 |
| Walkability | 61.0/100 | 30.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 124 | 29 |
| Planning activity | 23 | 1 |
| Green cover | 15.5% | 58.0% |
| Population | 9,412 | 1,678 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 8/10 | 10/10 |
Put side by side, Chipping Norton is an energetic metro established suburb where cafés and local life overlap, and Voyager Point is a sought-after metro smaller community where housing reflects strong local demand. Chipping Norton sits in a middle-ring position, whereas Voyager Point is further out with more breathing room.
On the data, Chipping Norton is stronger for schools and education options, parks and reserves, and public transport access; Voyager Point answers with housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and a calmer planning outlook.
Investors and households prioritising schools may find Chipping Norton the better fit, while retirees, families, and value-focused buyers are more likely to prefer Voyager Point.
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.