Overall score
Kalorama
51.7/100
Kilsyth
55.6/100
Kalorama vs Kilsyth, VIC Suburb Comparison
Kalorama for families and schools; Kilsyth for retirees and investment.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
KaloramaKilsyth
Crime rate
Kalorama
35.8 / 1k
Kilsyth
54.3 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Kalorama
155
Kilsyth
268
Population
Kalorama
1,277
Kilsyth
11,699
Metric leadKalorama 3Kilsyth 81 tiedacross 12 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 | Kalorama | Kilsyth |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 51.7/100 | 55.6/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 39.5/100 | 72.4/100 |
| Crime rate | 35.8 / 1k | 54.3 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | — | 4 |
| Weather (desirability) | 82.3/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 2 | 20 |
| Public transport stops | 21 | 56 |
| Walkability | 32.0/100 | 82.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 155 | 268 |
| Planning activity | 23 | 230 |
| Green cover | 4.2% | 5.9% |
| Population | 1,277 | 11,699 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 9/10 | 5/10 |
Comparison summary
Kalorama reads as a leafier hillside smaller community with elevated outlooks; Kilsyth is a hillside established suburb with greener streets and a quieter pace.
Kalorama pulls ahead on a quieter safety profile, a calmer planning outlook, and stronger socioeconomic advantage, whereas Kilsyth is the better pick for housing affordability, parks and reserves, and public transport access. On housing, Kalorama sits in a expensive band, compared with a gently premium feel in Kilsyth.
Kalorama suits retirees more clearly, whereas Kilsyth is the stronger match for families, investors, value-focused buyers, 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.