Overall score
Clinton
56.8/100
New Auckland
38.7/100
Clinton vs New Auckland, QLD suburb comparison
Clinton for families and investment.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
ClintonNew Auckland
Crime rate
Clinton
52.8 / 1k
New Auckland
52.7 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Clinton
54
New Auckland
25
Population
Clinton
6,170
New Auckland
5,266
Metric leadClinton 5New Auckland 31 tiedacross 9 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 | Clinton | New Auckland |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 56.8/100 | 38.7/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 57.0/100 | 43.4/100 |
| Crime rate | 52.8 / 1k | 52.7 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 2 | 2 |
| Parks & reserves | 10 | 11 |
| Walkability | 49.0/100 | 1.5/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 54 | 25 |
| Population | 6,170 | 5,266 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 2/10 | 3/10 |
Comparison summary
Clinton reads as a regional mid-sized suburb that feels self-contained without feeling remote; New Auckland is a regional hub with its own identity and everyday convenience.
Clinton pulls ahead on housing affordability and walkability, whereas New Auckland is the better pick for parks and reserves and stronger socioeconomic advantage.
On balance, investors and value-focused buyers are more likely to prefer Clinton, while New Auckland remains a solid alternative depending on what matters most day to day.