Overall score
Chiton
49.0/100
Goolwa
33.6/100
Chiton vs Goolwa, SA Suburb Comparison
Chiton for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
ChitonGoolwa
Crime rate
Chiton
10.2 / 1k
Goolwa
42.0 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Chiton
13
Goolwa
26
Population
Chiton
440
Goolwa
2,558
Metric leadChiton 5Goolwa 41 tiedacross 10 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.
| Category | Chiton | Goolwa |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 49.0/100 | 33.6/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 42.3/100 | 57.5/100 |
| Crime rate | 10.2 / 1k | 42.0 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | — | 3 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | — | 5 |
| Walkability | 0.0/100 | 7.5/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 13 | 26 |
| Planning activity | 20 | 137 |
| Green cover | 12.4% | 1.2% |
| Population | 440 | 2,558 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 5/10 | 1/10 |
Comparison summary
Chiton reads as a beachside smaller community where the coast sets the tone; Goolwa is a hillside mid-sized suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace. Chiton leans into coastal living, while Goolwa feels more inland and suburban in character.
On the data, Chiton is stronger for a quieter safety profile, tree cover and green space, and overall desirability; Goolwa answers with housing affordability, walkability, and nearby cafés and amenities. On housing, Chiton sits in a expensive band, compared with a affordable feel in Goolwa.
Chiton suits retirees, families, people chasing a beach lifestyle, and households prioritising schools more clearly, whereas Goolwa is the stronger match for investors and value-focused buyers.
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.