Side by sideSuburb comparison

Coonamia vs Napperby.

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

On school quality, the average ICSEA across schools serving Napperby (916) sits above Coonamia (908). Napperby skews owner-occupied (86%), Coonamia runs more rental-dense (73% 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

Napperby edges out on average school ICSEA (916 vs 908).

Common questionsCoonamia vs Napperby

Common questions

Does Coonamia or Napperby have better schools?

On average school ICSEA (the ACARA index that benchmarks educational advantage), Napperby scores 916 vs 908 in Coonamia. 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

Coonamia
Metric
Napperby

Price & Market

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

Rental

$185/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$350/wk
$250/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$250/wk
73.0%
Owner occupied
86.0%
23.0%
Renter occupied
9.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

0
Walk score
0
0
Transit score
0
0
Bike score
0
96
Population
666
40
Median age
44

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

9
Schools nearby
10
908
Avg ICSEA
916

Climate

Annual rainfall
Mean max (Jan)

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