Chipping Norton vs Warwick Farm, NSW Suburb Comparison

Chipping Norton for families and value; Warwick Farm for retirees and investment.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Chipping NortonWarwick Farm

Overall score

Chipping Norton

48.0/100

Warwick Farm

40.6/100

Crime rate

Chipping Norton

168.6 / 1k

Warwick Farm

168.6 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Chipping Norton

124

Warwick Farm

156

Population

Chipping Norton

9,412

Warwick Farm

6,135

Metric leadChipping Norton 6Warwick Farm 52 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.

CategoryChipping NortonWarwick Farm
Overall score48.0/10040.6/100
Housing (desirability)45.0/10050.9/100
Crime rate168.6 / 1k168.6 / 1k
Schools & preschools710
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves282
Public transport stops10958
Walkability61.0/10044.0/100
Nearby amenities124156
Planning activity2316
Green cover15.5%15.7%
Population9,4126,135
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)8/101/10

Comparison summary

Put side by side, Chipping Norton is an energetic metro established suburb where cafés and local life overlap, and Warwick Farm is an energetic metro mid-sized suburb where cafés and local life overlap.

Chipping Norton pulls ahead on housing affordability, parks and reserves, and public transport access, whereas Warwick Farm is the better pick for schools and education options, nearby cafés and amenities, and a calmer planning outlook.

On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Chipping Norton, while Warwick Farm 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