Deeragun vs Mount Low, QLD Suburb Comparison

Deeragun for investment; Mount Low for value and schools.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

DeeragunMount Low

Overall score

Deeragun

31.0/100

Mount Low

33.4/100

Crime rate

Deeragun

65.7 / 1k

Mount Low

65.6 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Deeragun

32

Mount Low

23

Population

Deeragun

4,273

Mount Low

5,488

Metric leadDeeragun 6Mount Low 41 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.

CategoryDeeragunMount Low
Overall score31.0/10033.4/100
Housing (desirability)52.2/10051.5/100
Crime rate65.7 / 1k65.6 / 1k
Schools & preschools21
Weather (desirability)19.8/10019.8/100
Parks & reserves31
Walkability27.0/1000.0/100
Nearby amenities3223
Green cover1.2%0.6%
Population4,2735,488
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)2/106/10

Comparison summary

Put side by side, Deeragun is a regional mid-sized suburb that feels self-contained without feeling remote, and Mount Low is a hillside mid-sized suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace. Mount Low sits among greener hillside streets, while Deeragun keeps a flatter suburban layout.

Deeragun pulls ahead on schools and education options, parks and reserves, and walkability, whereas Mount Low is the better pick for housing affordability, a larger local community, and stronger socioeconomic advantage. On housing, Deeragun sits in a affordable band, compared with a expensive feel in Mount Low.

On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Mount Low, while Deeragun 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