Overall score
Elizabeth Downs
26.5/100
One Tree Hill
42.8/100
One Tree Hill for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Elizabeth Downs
26.5/100
One Tree Hill
42.8/100
Crime rate
Elizabeth Downs
104.4 / 1k
One Tree Hill
27.7 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Elizabeth Downs
79
One Tree Hill
7
Population
Elizabeth Downs
5,160
One Tree Hill
1,043
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 | Elizabeth Downs | One Tree Hill |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 26.5/100 | 42.8/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 48.5/100 | 51.4/100 |
| Crime rate | 104.4 / 1k | 27.7 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 5 | 2 |
| Weather (desirability) | 37.3/100 | 37.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | 42 | — |
| Walkability | 32.0/100 | 0.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 79 | 7 |
| Planning activity | 88 | 18 |
| Green cover | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Population | 5,160 | 1,043 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 1/10 | 8/10 |
Put side by side, Elizabeth Downs is an energetic metro mid-sized suburb where cafés and local life overlap, and One Tree Hill is a slower-paced smaller community with open surrounds. Elizabeth Downs sits in a middle-ring position, whereas One Tree Hill is within day-trip reach of the capital.
On the data, Elizabeth Downs is stronger for housing affordability, schools and education options, and walkability; One Tree Hill answers with a quieter safety profile, a calmer planning outlook, and stronger socioeconomic advantage. Elizabeth Downs generally means more approachable housing costs, while One Tree Hill leans toward more sought-after housing.
Elizabeth Downs suits investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools more clearly, whereas One Tree Hill is the stronger match for retirees and families.
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.