Overall score
Lightsview
48.5/100
Sefton Park
43.7/100
Lightsview vs Sefton Park, SA Suburb Comparison
Lightsview for retirees and families; Sefton Park for investment and schools.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
LightsviewSefton Park
Crime rate
Lightsview
43.9 / 1k
Sefton Park
118.2 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Lightsview
183
Sefton Park
42
Population
Lightsview
6,090
Sefton Park
1,274
Metric leadLightsview 9Sefton Park 11 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 retireesLightsview
- Best for familiesLightsview
- Best for investmentSefton Park
- Best for best schoolsSefton 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 | Lightsview | Sefton Park |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 48.5/100 | 43.7/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 60.3/100 | 60.0/100 |
| Crime rate | 43.9 / 1k | 118.2 / 1k |
| Weather (desirability) | 37.3/100 | 37.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | 14 | 6 |
| Walkability | 56.0/100 | 57.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 183 | 42 |
| Planning activity | 12 | 15 |
| Green cover | 4.2% | 0.0% |
| Population | 6,090 | 1,274 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 9/10 | 7/10 |
Comparison summary
Lightsview reads as an energetic metro mid-sized suburb where cafés and local life overlap; Sefton Park is a sought-after metro smaller community where housing reflects strong local demand.
On the data, Lightsview is stronger for housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and public transport access; Sefton Park answers with walkability.
Retirees, families, investors, and value-focused buyers may find Lightsview the better fit, while households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Sefton Park.
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.