Overall score
Congupna
36.6/100
Dookie
41.0/100
Congupna vs Dookie, VIC Suburb Comparison
Congupna for schools; Dookie for families and investment.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
CongupnaDookie
Crime rate
Congupna
66.7 / 1k
Dookie
51.5 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Congupna
4
Dookie
7
Population
Congupna
620
Dookie
333
Metric leadCongupna 3Dookie 53 tiedacross 11 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 | Congupna | Dookie |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 36.6/100 | 41.0/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 47.0/100 | 73.5/100 |
| Crime rate | 66.7 / 1k | 51.5 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 1 | 1 |
| Weather (desirability) | 13.4/100 | 13.4/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 2 | — |
| Public transport stops | 1 | — |
| Walkability | 1.5/100 | 0.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 4 | 7 |
| Planning activity | 10 | 6 |
| Green cover | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Population | 620 | 333 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 7/10 | 5/10 |
Comparison summary
Congupna is a more rural smaller community that rewards people who want room to breathe, while Dookie is a more rural smaller community that rewards people who want room to breathe.
Congupna pulls ahead on walkability, a larger local community, and stronger socioeconomic advantage, whereas Dookie is the better pick for housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and nearby cafés and amenities. Congupna generally means housing toward the upper end of the market, while Dookie leans toward more mid-market housing value.
Choose Congupna if you are weighing households prioritising schools; lean toward Dookie for retirees, families, investors, and value-focused buyers.
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.