Side by sideSuburb comparison

Green Fields vs Parafield.

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

Parafield scores higher on walkability (12/100 vs 56/100 ), 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

School and household data is too similar between the two to call a winner on family fit. Check the individual profiles for street-level school catchments.

Common questionsGreen Fields vs Parafield

Common questions

Which is more walkable, Green Fields or Parafield?

Parafield scores 56/100 on walkability vs 12/100. 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

Green Fields
Metric
Parafield

Price & Market

$911,000
Median house
$218,880
Median unit
+0.0%
Annual growth (house)
+0.0%
Days on market

Rental

$300/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$309/wk
$323/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$263/wk
88.0%
Owner occupied
5.0%
Renter occupied

Lifestyle & Demographics

12
Walk score
56
0
Transit score
0
100
Bike score
45
170
Population
21
35
Median age
22

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

20
Schools nearby
20
970
Avg ICSEA
970

Climate

448 mm
Annual rainfall
448 mm
27.9°C
Mean max (Jan)
27.9°C

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