Overall score
Clayton Bay
27.1/100
Milang
34.8/100
Clayton Bay vs Milang, SA Suburb Comparison
Clayton Bay for retirees; Milang for families and investment.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
Clayton BayMilang
Crime rate
Clayton Bay
23.8 / 1k
Milang
27.2 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Clayton Bay
2
Milang
6
Population
Clayton Bay
472
Milang
962
Metric leadClayton Bay 3Milang 61 tiedacross 10 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
- Best for retireesClayton Bay
- Best for familiesMilang
- Best for investmentMilang
- Best for best valueMilang
- Best for best schoolsMilang
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 | Clayton Bay | Milang |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 27.1/100 | 34.8/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 44.2/100 | 61.3/100 |
| Crime rate | 23.8 / 1k | 27.2 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | — | 2 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 37.3/100 |
| Walkability | 0.0/100 | 0.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 2 | 6 |
| Planning activity | 34 | 26 |
| Green cover | 0.0% | 0.7% |
| Population | 472 | 962 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 2/10 | 1/10 |
Comparison summary
Clayton Bay reads as a slower-paced smaller community with open surrounds; Milang is a quieter smaller community with space and a country-town pace.
Clayton Bay pulls ahead on a quieter safety profile and stronger socioeconomic advantage, whereas Milang is the better pick for housing affordability, nearby cafés and amenities, and tree cover and green space.
On balance, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Milang, while Clayton Bay 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.