Overall score
Goolwa North
32.5/100
Hindmarsh Island
29.1/100
Goolwa North vs Hindmarsh Island, SA Suburb Comparison
Goolwa North for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
Goolwa NorthHindmarsh Island
Crime rate
Goolwa North
11.1 / 1k
Hindmarsh Island
18.7 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Goolwa North
5
Hindmarsh Island
5
Population
Goolwa North
1,307
Hindmarsh Island
1,846
Metric leadGoolwa North 5Hindmarsh Island 23 tiedacross 10 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
- Best for retireesGoolwa North
- Best for familiesGoolwa North
- Best for investmentGoolwa North
- Best for best valueGoolwa North
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 | Goolwa North | Hindmarsh Island |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 32.5/100 | 29.1/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 53.2/100 | 44.2/100 |
| Crime rate | 11.1 / 1k | 18.7 / 1k |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Walkability | 0.0/100 | 0.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 5 | 5 |
| Planning activity | 37 | 127 |
| Green cover | 0.5% | 0.0% |
| Population | 1,307 | 1,846 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 2/10 | 3/10 |
Comparison summary
Goolwa North is a more rural smaller community that rewards people who want room to breathe, while Hindmarsh Island is a slower-paced smaller community with open surrounds.
Goolwa North pulls ahead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and tree cover and green space, whereas Hindmarsh Island is the better pick for a larger local community and stronger socioeconomic advantage.
Investors and value-focused buyers may find Goolwa North the better fit, while retirees and families are more likely to prefer Hindmarsh Island.
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.