Clarendon Vale vs Mount Rumney, TAS Suburb Comparison

Clarendon Vale for retirees and families; Mount Rumney for investment and value.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Clarendon ValeMount Rumney

Overall score

Clarendon Vale

30.1/100

Mount Rumney

38.5/100

Crime rate

Clarendon Vale

55.5 / 1k

Mount Rumney

55.5 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Clarendon Vale

38

Mount Rumney

7

Population

Clarendon Vale

1,635

Mount Rumney

303

Metric leadClarendon Vale 4Mount Rumney 42 tiedacross 10 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.

CategoryClarendon ValeMount Rumney
Overall score30.1/10038.5/100
Housing (desirability)55.5/10062.1/100
Crime rate55.5 / 1k55.5 / 1k
Schools & preschools5—
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves15
Public transport stops18—
Walkability27.0/1000.0/100
Nearby amenities387
Green cover6.1%2.5%
Population1,635303
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)1/109/10

Comparison summary

Put side by side, Clarendon Vale is a settled metro smaller community that keeps everyday living grounded and accessible, and Mount Rumney is a hills smaller community where tree cover and calm define the mood. Mount Rumney sits among greener hillside streets, while Clarendon Vale keeps a flatter suburban layout.

Clarendon Vale tends to lead on walkability, nearby cafés and amenities, and overall desirability, while Mount Rumney stands out for parks and reserves, plus stronger socioeconomic advantage. Clarendon Vale generally means more approachable housing costs, while Mount Rumney leans toward more sought-after housing.

Families and households prioritising schools may find Clarendon Vale the better fit, while retirees are more likely to prefer Mount Rumney.

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