Overall score
Eaglehawk
41.6/100
Huntly
44.8/100
Eaglehawk vs Huntly, VIC Suburb Comparison
Eaglehawk for investment; Huntly for families and value.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
EaglehawkHuntly
Crime rate
Eaglehawk
95.8 / 1k
Huntly
72.9 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Eaglehawk
86
Huntly
46
Population
Eaglehawk
5,538
Huntly
3,585
Metric leadEaglehawk 7Huntly 51 tiedacross 13 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 | Eaglehawk | Huntly |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 41.6/100 | 44.8/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 82.0/100 | 53.5/100 |
| Crime rate | 95.8 / 1k | 72.9 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 2 | 1 |
| Weather (desirability) | 53.4/100 | 53.4/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 4 | 3 |
| Public transport stops | 48 | 21 |
| Walkability | 30.0/100 | 61.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 86 | 46 |
| Planning activity | 83 | 87 |
| Green cover | 7.6% | 10.6% |
| Population | 5,538 | 3,585 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 2/10 | 5/10 |
Comparison summary
Eaglehawk is a regional hub with its own identity and everyday convenience, while Huntly is a regional mid-sized suburb that feels self-contained without feeling remote.
On the data, Eaglehawk is stronger for schools and education options, parks and reserves, and public transport access; Huntly answers with housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and walkability. Eaglehawk generally means more approachable housing costs, while Huntly leans toward more approachable mid-market housing.
Eaglehawk suits investors more clearly, whereas Huntly is the stronger match for retirees, families, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools.
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.