Overall score
Port Macquarie
50.0/100
Mount Gambier
51.5/100
Port Macquarie for value and schools; Mount Gambier for families and investment.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Overall score
Port Macquarie
50.0/100
Mount Gambier
51.5/100
Crime rate
Port Macquarie
86.7 / 1k
Mount Gambier
58.7 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Port Macquarie
187
Mount Gambier
565
Population
Port Macquarie
47,693
Mount Gambier
25,591
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 | Port Macquarie | Mount Gambier |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 50.0/100 | 51.5/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 73.2/100 | 70.8/100 |
| Crime rate | 86.7 / 1k | 58.7 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 6 | 20 |
| Weather (desirability) | 56.4/100 | 82.3/100 |
| Parks & reserves | 37 | — |
| Public transport stops | 653 | 121 |
| Walkability | 53.0/100 | 100.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 187 | 565 |
| Planning activity | 277 | 226 |
| Green cover | 21.9% | 8.0% |
| Population | 47,693 | 25,591 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 4/10 | 1/10 |
Across states, Port Macquarie is a regional larger suburb with local services and a more relaxed pace, whereas Mount Gambier is a leafier hillside larger suburb with elevated outlooks. Mount Gambier sits among greener hillside streets, while Port Macquarie keeps a flatter suburban layout.
Port Macquarie tends to lead on housing affordability, public transport access, and a larger local community, while Mount Gambier stands out for a quieter safety profile, schools and education options, and walkability. On housing, Port Macquarie sits in a expensive band, compared with a affordable feel in Mount Gambier.
Choose Port Macquarie if you are weighing households prioritising schools; lean toward Mount Gambier for retirees 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.