Overall score
Clapham
47.2/100
Clarence Gardens
47.5/100
Clapham vs Clarence Gardens, SA Suburb Comparison
Clapham for value; Clarence Gardens for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
ClaphamClarence Gardens
Crime rate
Clapham
16.3 / 1k
Clarence Gardens
34.3 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Clapham
25
Clarence Gardens
94
Population
Clapham
1,685
Clarence Gardens
2,373
Metric leadClapham 4Clarence Gardens 62 tiedacross 12 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
- Best for retireesClarence Gardens
- Best for familiesClarence Gardens
- Best for best valueClapham
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 | Clapham | Clarence Gardens |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 47.2/100 | 47.5/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 62.2/100 | 61.6/100 |
| Crime rate | 16.3 / 1k | 34.3 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 1 | 1 |
| Weather (desirability) | 37.3/100 | 56.4/100 |
| Public transport stops | 6 | 12 |
| Walkability | 9.0/100 | 28.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 25 | 94 |
| Planning activity | 24 | 45 |
| Green cover | 0.4% | 0.4% |
| Population | 1,685 | 2,373 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 9/10 |
Comparison summary
Clapham reads as a sought-after metro smaller community where housing reflects strong local demand; Clarence Gardens is an energetic metro smaller community where cafés and local life overlap.
Clapham tends to lead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and a calmer planning outlook, while Clarence Gardens stands out for public transport access, walkability, and nearby cafés and amenities.
Choose Clapham if you are weighing retirees and families; lean toward Clarence Gardens for households prioritising schools.
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.