Mount Waverley vs Notting Hill, VIC Suburb Comparison

Mount Waverley for retirees and families.

See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.

Head to head

Visual comparison

Mount WaverleyNotting Hill

Overall score

Mount Waverley

62.0/100

Notting Hill

45.5/100

Crime rate

Mount Waverley

48.4 / 1k

Notting Hill

78.7 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Mount Waverley

406

Notting Hill

134

Population

Mount Waverley

35,340

Notting Hill

2,895

Metric leadMount Waverley 10Notting Hill 11 tiedacross 12 compared metrics

Livability profile

Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs

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.

CategoryMount WaverleyNotting Hill
Overall score62.0/10045.5/100
Housing (desirability)41.9/10040.2/100
Crime rate48.4 / 1k78.7 / 1k
Schools & preschools94
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves32—
Public transport stops13817
Walkability94.0/10049.5/100
Nearby amenities406134
Planning activity46935
Green cover8.6%3.0%
Population35,3402,895
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)10/109/10

Comparison summary

Put side by side, Mount Waverley is a hills larger suburb where tree cover and calm define the mood, and Notting Hill is a lively metro mid-sized suburb with dining and everyday convenience close by. Mount Waverley sits among greener hillside streets, while Notting Hill keeps a flatter suburban layout.

Mount Waverley tends to lead on a quieter safety profile, schools and education options, and public transport access, while Notting Hill stands out for housing affordability and a calmer planning outlook.

On balance, retirees, families, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Mount Waverley, while Notting Hill 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.

Related comparisons