Overall score
Kings Park
46.9/100
Parkside
50.7/100
Kings Park vs Parkside, SA Suburb Comparison
Kings Park for investment and schools; Parkside for retirees and families.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
Kings ParkParkside
Crime rate
Kings Park
39.4 / 1k
Parkside
39.0 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Kings Park
35
Parkside
192
Population
Kings Park
574
Parkside
5,126
Metric leadKings Park 2Parkside 81 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 retireesParkside
- Best for familiesParkside
- Best for investmentKings Park
- Best for best valueParkside
- Best for best schoolsKings Park
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 | Kings Park | Parkside |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 46.9/100 | 50.7/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 49.5/100 | 53.0/100 |
| Crime rate | 39.4 / 1k | 39.0 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | — | 1 |
| Weather (desirability) | 56.4/100 | 37.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | 5 | 17 |
| Walkability | 24.5/100 | 49.5/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 35 | 192 |
| Planning activity | 8 | 72 |
| Green cover | 0.0% | 1.2% |
| Population | 574 | 5,126 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 10/10 | 10/10 |
Comparison summary
Kings Park is a sought-after metro smaller community where housing reflects strong local demand, while Parkside is a well-serviced metro mid-sized suburb with plenty happening nearby.
On the data, Kings Park is stronger for a calmer planning outlook; Parkside answers with housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and public transport access.
Kings Park suits households prioritising schools more clearly, whereas Parkside is the stronger match for retirees, investors, and value-focused buyers.
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.