Claymore vs Kearns, NSW Suburb Comparison

Kearns for retirees and families.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

ClaymoreKearns

Overall score

Claymore

28.7/100

Kearns

44.0/100

Crime rate

Claymore

86.4 / 1k

Kearns

34.0 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Claymore

45

Kearns

27

Population

Claymore

2,579

Kearns

2,693

Metric leadClaymore 5Kearns 62 tiedacross 13 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.

CategoryClaymoreKearns
Overall score28.7/10044.0/100
Housing (desirability)9.1/10044.9/100
Crime rate86.4 / 1k34.0 / 1k
Schools & preschools66
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves52
Public transport stops3629
Walkability55.0/10030.0/100
Nearby amenities4527
Planning activity524
Green cover17.3%6.4%
Population2,5792,693
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)1/106/10

Comparison summary

Claymore reads as a well-serviced metro mid-sized suburb with plenty happening nearby; Kearns is a sought-after metro mid-sized suburb where housing reflects strong local demand. Claymore sits in a middle-ring position, whereas Kearns is further out with more breathing room.

Claymore tends to lead on parks and reserves, public transport access, and walkability, while Kearns stands out for housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and overall desirability. Claymore generally means more approachable housing costs, while Kearns leans toward more sought-after housing.

On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Kearns, while Claymore 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