Side by sideSuburb comparison

Canunda vs Port Macdonnell.

Suburb-to-suburb comparison across price, growth, lifestyle, schools and risk. Port Macdonnell edges out on more headline metrics in this comparison.

Port Macdonnell scores higher on walkability (0/100 vs 14/100 ), useful if you're optimising for a car-light household. Port Macdonnell skews owner-occupied (78%), Canunda runs more rental-dense (60% owner).

The takeWhich suburb suits which buyer

For buyers

We don't yet have verified suburb-level medians for one or both of these suburbs. Check the individual profiles for the data we do publish, and the methodology page for how we source it.

For investors

Rental or growth data is incomplete for one or both suburbs. Look at the full investor view on each suburb profile for a complete picture.

For families

Canunda has a heavier family-household mix (100% vs 69%), which typically signals stronger demand for family-amenable infrastructure (parks, schools, supermarkets).

Common questionsCanunda vs Port Macdonnell

Common questions

Which is more walkable, Canunda or Port Macdonnell?

Port Macdonnell scores 14/100 on walkability vs 0/100. Above 70 is considered very walkable (most errands on foot), 50-69 is walkable for some errands, below 50 typically requires a car for daily life.

The numbers behind the take

Canunda
Metric
Port Macdonnell

Price & Market

Median house
Median unit
+0.0%
Annual growth (house)
+0.0%
Days on market

Rental

$220/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$400/wk
$230/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$210/wk
60.0%
Owner occupied
78.0%
80.0%
Renter occupied
16.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

0
Walk score
14
0
Transit score
0
0
Bike score
40
21
Population
859
28
Median age
53

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

17
Schools nearby
17
958
Avg ICSEA
958

Climate

Annual rainfall
Mean max (Jan)

Green dot = better on that metric (lower price, higher growth, higher walkability, lower risk).