Erskine Park vs Kemps Creek, NSW Suburb Comparison

Erskine Park for retirees and families; Kemps Creek for schools.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Erskine ParkKemps Creek

Overall score

Erskine Park

52.6/100

Kemps Creek

31.3/100

Crime rate

Erskine Park

29.9 / 1k

Kemps Creek

93.3 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Erskine Park

150

Kemps Creek

20

Population

Erskine Park

6,486

Kemps Creek

2,121

Metric leadErskine Park 12Kemps Creek 01 tiedacross 13 compared metrics

Livability profile

Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs

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.

CategoryErskine ParkKemps Creek
Overall score52.6/10031.3/100
Housing (desirability)42.1/10026.6/100
Crime rate29.9 / 1k93.3 / 1k
Schools & preschools42
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves72
Public transport stops8869
Walkability55.0/10034.0/100
Nearby amenities15020
Planning activity1219
Green cover13.9%7.0%
Population6,4862,121
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)7/105/10

Comparison summary

Erskine Park is a well-serviced metro mid-sized suburb with plenty happening nearby, while Kemps Creek is a metro smaller community with a gently premium housing feel and familiar suburban calm. Erskine Park sits in a middle-ring position, whereas Kemps Creek is further out with more breathing room.

Erskine Park pulls ahead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and schools and education options, whereas Kemps Creek is the better pick for excellent public transport and a strongly multicultural community.

On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Erskine Park, while Kemps Creek 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