Overall score
Hoppers Crossing
44.8/100
Point Cook
55.7/100
Point Cook for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
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
Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs
Clearer edge on lifestyle fit (score gap ≥ 3)
Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100
Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.
Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.
| Category | Hoppers Crossing | Point Cook |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 44.8/100 | 55.7/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 55.0/100 | 42.5/100 |
| Crime rate | 102.8 / 1k | 38.6 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 8 | 5 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 46 | 67 |
| Public transport stops | 187 | 124 |
| Walkability | 92.0/100 | 80.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 265 | 457 |
| Planning activity | 148 | 98 |
| Green cover | 7.8% | 8.1% |
| Population | 37,216 | 66,781 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 3/10 | 9/10 |
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.