Side by sideSuburb comparison

Chambers Flat vs Logan Village.

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

On school quality, the average ICSEA across schools serving Logan Village (988) sits above Chambers Flat (974). Logan Village skews owner-occupied (86%), Chambers Flat runs more rental-dense (70% 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

Logan Village edges out on average school ICSEA (988 vs 974). Logan Village also has a higher family-household share (83% vs 70%), so the catchment community skews family-heavy.

Common questionsChambers Flat vs Logan Village

Common questions

Does Chambers Flat or Logan Village have better schools?

On average school ICSEA (the ACARA index that benchmarks educational advantage), Logan Village scores 988 vs 974 in Chambers Flat. ICSEA is a school-community indicator, not a quality rating, so always check NAPLAN results and catchment boundaries for the specific address you're considering.

The numbers behind the take

Chambers Flat
Metric
Logan Village

Price & Market

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

Rental

$730/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$350/wk
$270/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$455/wk
70.0%
Owner occupied
86.0%
24.0%
Renter occupied
11.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

0
Walk score
0
0
Transit score
0
0
Bike score
55
2,718
Population
5,316
47
Median age
42

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

20
Schools nearby
19
974
Avg ICSEA
988

Climate

1068 mm
Annual rainfall
1068 mm
30.4°C
Mean max (Jan)
30.4°C

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