Overall score
Harcourt North
50.7/100
Sedgwick
52.3/100
Harcourt North vs Sedgwick, VIC Suburb Comparison
Harcourt North for families and investment; Sedgwick for schools.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
Harcourt NorthSedgwick
Crime rate
Harcourt North
45.6 / 1k
Sedgwick
11.2 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Harcourt North
5
Sedgwick
2
Population
Harcourt North
291
Sedgwick
614
Metric leadHarcourt North 5Sedgwick 33 tiedacross 11 compared metrics
Livability profile
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Quick verdicts
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
- Best for familiesHarcourt North
- Best for investmentHarcourt North
- Best for best schoolsSedgwick
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 | Harcourt North | Sedgwick |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 50.7/100 | 52.3/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 47.8/100 | 43.0/100 |
| Crime rate | 45.6 / 1k | 11.2 / 1k |
| Weather (desirability) | 53.4/100 | 53.4/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 3 | 2 |
| Walkability | 0.0/100 | 0.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 5 | 2 |
| Planning activity | 10 | 38 |
| Green cover | 23.3% | 15.5% |
| Population | 291 | 614 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 10/10 |
Comparison summary
Put side by side, Harcourt North is a quieter smaller community with space and a country-town pace, and Sedgwick is a slower-paced smaller community with open surrounds.
On the data, Harcourt North is stronger for parks and reserves, nearby cafés and amenities, and a calmer planning outlook; Sedgwick answers with housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and overall desirability.
On balance, retirees, families, investors, and value-focused buyers are more likely to prefer Sedgwick, while Harcourt North 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.