Overall score
Cobblebank
31.8/100
Melton South
37.4/100
Cobblebank for families and value; Melton South for retirees.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Cobblebank
31.8/100
Melton South
37.4/100
Crime rate
Cobblebank
47.0 / 1k
Melton South
89.0 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Cobblebank
27
Melton South
192
Population
Cobblebank
3,601
Melton South
11,362
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100
Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.
Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.
| Category | Cobblebank | Melton South |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 31.8/100 | 37.4/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 39.9/100 | 39.5/100 |
| Crime rate | 47.0 / 1k | 89.0 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 1 | 6 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 3 | 5 |
| Public transport stops | 7 | 41 |
| Walkability | 10.5/100 | 80.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 27 | 192 |
| Planning activity | 33 | 61 |
| Green cover | 3.1% | 8.5% |
| Population | 3,601 | 11,362 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 5/10 | 1/10 |
Cobblebank reads as a settled metro mid-sized suburb that keeps everyday living grounded and accessible; Melton South is a lively metro established suburb with dining and everyday convenience close by. Cobblebank sits further out with more breathing room, whereas Melton South is in a middle-ring position.
Cobblebank tends to lead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and a calmer planning outlook, while Melton South stands out for schools and education options, parks and reserves, and public transport access. Cobblebank generally means more approachable mid-market housing, while Melton South leans toward more approachable housing costs.
Retirees may find Cobblebank the better fit, while families and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Melton South.
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.