Overall score
Ingleburn
53.1/100
Macquarie Fields
41.9/100
Ingleburn vs Macquarie Fields, NSW Suburb Comparison
Ingleburn for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
IngleburnMacquarie Fields
Crime rate
Ingleburn
55.8 / 1k
Macquarie Fields
96.8 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Ingleburn
373
Macquarie Fields
283
Population
Ingleburn
15,264
Macquarie Fields
14,023
Metric leadIngleburn 8Macquarie Fields 41 tiedacross 13 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 | Ingleburn | Macquarie Fields |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 53.1/100 | 41.9/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 53.2/100 | 48.8/100 |
| Crime rate | 55.8 / 1k | 96.8 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 4 | 7 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 21 | 28 |
| Public transport stops | 235 | 170 |
| Walkability | 100.0/100 | 81.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 373 | 283 |
| Planning activity | 48 | 16 |
| Green cover | 5.8% | 21.0% |
| Population | 15,264 | 14,023 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 4/10 | 1/10 |
Comparison summary
Ingleburn reads as an energetic metro established suburb where cafés and local life overlap; Macquarie Fields is a lively metro established suburb with dining and everyday convenience close by.
Ingleburn tends to lead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and public transport access, while Macquarie Fields stands out for schools and education options, parks and reserves, and a calmer planning outlook.
On balance, retirees and value-focused buyers are more likely to prefer Ingleburn, while Macquarie Fields 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.