Side by sideSuburb comparison

Cooma vs Polo Flat.

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

Cooma scores higher on walkability (92/100 vs 4/100 ), useful if you're optimising for a car-light household.

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

Polo Flat has a heavier family-household mix (83% vs 62%), which typically signals stronger demand for family-amenable infrastructure (parks, schools, supermarkets).

Common questionsCooma vs Polo Flat

Common questions

Which is more walkable, Cooma or Polo Flat?

Cooma scores 92/100 on walkability vs 4/100. 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

Cooma
Metric
Polo Flat

Price & Market

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

Rental

$290/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$290/wk
$290/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$180/wk
67.0%
Owner occupied
29.0%
Renter occupied
50.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

92
Walk score
4
0
Transit score
0
85
Bike score
15
6,715
Population
13
44
Median age
43

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

6
Schools nearby
6
996
Avg ICSEA
996

Climate

Annual rainfall
Mean max (Jan)

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