Cobblebank vs Kurunjang, VIC Suburb Comparison

Cobblebank for families and schools; Kurunjang for retirees and investment.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

CobblebankKurunjang

Overall score

Cobblebank

31.8/100

Kurunjang

30.6/100

Crime rate

Cobblebank

47.0 / 1k

Kurunjang

76.4 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Cobblebank

27

Kurunjang

40

Population

Cobblebank

3,601

Kurunjang

10,711

Metric leadCobblebank 3Kurunjang 82 tiedacross 13 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.

CategoryCobblebankKurunjang
Overall score31.8/10030.6/100
Housing (desirability)39.9/10052.9/100
Crime rate47.0 / 1k76.4 / 1k
Schools & preschools12
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves33
Public transport stops737
Walkability10.5/10030.0/100
Nearby amenities2740
Planning activity3322
Green cover3.1%10.3%
Population3,60110,711
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)5/102/10

Comparison summary

Cobblebank reads as a settled metro mid-sized suburb that keeps everyday living grounded and accessible; Kurunjang is a practical metro established suburb with approachable housing and suburban calm. Cobblebank sits further out with more breathing room, whereas Kurunjang is in a middle-ring position.

On the data, Cobblebank is stronger for a quieter safety profile and stronger socioeconomic advantage; Kurunjang answers with schools and education options, public transport access, and walkability. On housing, Cobblebank sits in a approachable band, compared with a affordable feel in Kurunjang.

On balance, retirees, families, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Cobblebank, while Kurunjang 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