Fairfield Heights vs Old Guildford, NSW Suburb Comparison

Fairfield Heights for retirees and investment; Old Guildford for families.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Fairfield HeightsOld Guildford

Overall score

Fairfield Heights

36.0/100

Old Guildford

30.2/100

Crime rate

Fairfield Heights

66.1 / 1k

Old Guildford

61.6 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Fairfield Heights

50

Old Guildford

35

Population

Fairfield Heights

8,269

Old Guildford

2,857

Metric leadFairfield Heights 7Old Guildford 41 tiedacross 12 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.

CategoryFairfield HeightsOld Guildford
Overall score36.0/10030.2/100
Housing (desirability)39.7/10020.5/100
Crime rate66.1 / 1k61.6 / 1k
Schools & preschools1110
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves3—
Public transport stops3031
Walkability72.0/10030.0/100
Nearby amenities5035
Planning activity63
Green cover0.9%0.0%
Population8,2692,857
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)1/102/10

Comparison summary

Fairfield Heights is a hillside established suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace, while Old Guildford is a metro mid-sized suburb with a gently premium housing feel and familiar suburban calm. Fairfield Heights sits among greener hillside streets, while Old Guildford keeps a flatter suburban layout.

On the data, Fairfield Heights is stronger for housing affordability, schools and education options, and walkability; Old Guildford answers with a quieter safety profile, public transport access, and a calmer planning outlook.

Fairfield Heights suits investors and value-focused buyers more clearly, whereas Old Guildford is the stronger match for retirees.

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