Overall score
Farley
37.1/100
Lochinvar
44.2/100
Farley vs Lochinvar, NSW Suburb Comparison
Farley for schools; Lochinvar for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
FarleyLochinvar
Crime rate
Farley
95.7 / 1k
Lochinvar
46.7 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Farley
4
Lochinvar
41
Population
Farley
605
Lochinvar
1,095
Metric leadFarley 2Lochinvar 81 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.
| Category | Farley | Lochinvar |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 37.1/100 | 44.2/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 36.5/100 | 38.3/100 |
| Crime rate | 95.7 / 1k | 46.7 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | — | 3 |
| Weather (desirability) | 60.5/100 | 60.5/100 |
| Parks & reserves | — | 1 |
| Public transport stops | 6 | 57 |
| Walkability | 9.0/100 | 32.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 4 | 41 |
| Planning activity | 17 | 77 |
| Green cover | 26.3% | 6.1% |
| Population | 605 | 1,095 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 4/10 | 6/10 |
Comparison summary
Farley reads as a sought-after metro smaller community where housing reflects strong local demand; Lochinvar is a regional smaller community that feels self-contained without feeling remote. Farley sits further out with more breathing room, whereas Lochinvar is more regionally self-contained.
On the data, Farley is stronger for a calmer planning outlook; Lochinvar answers with housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and public transport access.
On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Lochinvar, while Farley 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.