Hoppers Crossing vs Point Cook, VIC Suburb Comparison

Point Cook for retirees and families.

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

Head to head

Visual comparison

Hoppers CrossingPoint Cook

Overall score

Hoppers Crossing

44.8/100

Point Cook

55.7/100

Crime rate

Hoppers Crossing

102.8 / 1k

Point Cook

38.6 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Hoppers Crossing

265

Point Cook

457

Population

Hoppers Crossing

37,216

Point Cook

66,781

Metric leadHoppers Crossing 4Point Cook 81 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.

CategoryHoppers CrossingPoint Cook
Overall score44.8/10055.7/100
Housing (desirability)55.0/10042.5/100
Crime rate102.8 / 1k38.6 / 1k
Schools & preschools85
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves4667
Public transport stops187124
Walkability92.0/10080.0/100
Nearby amenities265457
Planning activity14898
Green cover7.8%8.1%
Population37,21666,781
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)3/109/10

Comparison summary

Hoppers Crossing reads as a lively metro larger suburb with dining and everyday convenience close by; Point Cook is a coastal larger suburb with an easy, sea-led rhythm. Where Point Cook is shaped by the coast, Hoppers Crossing offers a more landlocked suburban rhythm.

Hoppers Crossing tends to lead on housing affordability, schools and education options, and public transport access, while Point Cook stands out for a quieter safety profile, parks and reserves, and nearby cafés and amenities. On housing, Hoppers Crossing sits in a affordable band, compared with a expensive feel in Point Cook.

Choose Hoppers Crossing if you are weighing investors and value-focused buyers; lean toward Point Cook for retirees, families, people chasing a beach lifestyle, and households prioritising schools.

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