Overall score
Panorama
47.6/100
Torrens Park
62.2/100
Panorama vs Torrens Park, SA Suburb Comparison
Panorama for value; Torrens Park for investment and schools.
See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.
Head to head
Visual comparison
PanoramaTorrens Park
Crime rate
Panorama
28.1 / 1k
Torrens Park
36.8 / 1k
Nearby amenities
Panorama
45
Torrens Park
68
Population
Panorama
2,388
Torrens Park
2,687
Metric leadPanorama 5Torrens Park 6across 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 investmentTorrens Park
- Best for best valuePanorama
- Best for best schoolsTorrens 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 | Panorama | Torrens Park |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 47.6/100 | 62.2/100 |
| Housing (desirability) | 67.3/100 | 54.4/100 |
| Crime rate | 28.1 / 1k | 36.8 / 1k |
| Schools & preschools | 1 | — |
| Weather (desirability) | 56.4/100 | 37.3/100 |
| Public transport stops | 19 | 23 |
| Walkability | 28.5/100 | 80.0/100 |
| Nearby amenities | 45 | 68 |
| Planning activity | 36 | 41 |
| Green cover | 8.5% | 1.3% |
| Population | 2,388 | 2,687 |
| SEIFA (IRSAD decile) | 9/10 | 10/10 |
Comparison summary
Panorama reads as an energetic metro smaller community where cafés and local life overlap; Torrens Park is an energetic metro mid-sized suburb where cafés and local life overlap.
Panorama pulls ahead on housing affordability, a quieter safety profile, and tree cover and green space, whereas Torrens Park is the better pick for public transport access, walkability, and nearby cafés and amenities.
Investors and value-focused buyers may find Panorama the better fit, while families and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Torrens 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.