Side by sideSuburb comparison

Kioloa vs Cockwhy.

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

Kioloa scores higher on walkability (6/100 vs 0/100 ), useful if you're optimising for a car-light household. Cockwhy skews owner-occupied (120%), Kioloa runs more rental-dense (80% 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

Cockwhy has a heavier family-household mix (120% vs 54%), which typically signals stronger demand for family-amenable infrastructure (parks, schools, supermarkets).

Common questionsKioloa vs Cockwhy

Common questions

Which is more walkable, Kioloa or Cockwhy?

Kioloa scores 6/100 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

Kioloa
Metric
Cockwhy

Price & Market

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

Rental

$350/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$350/wk
$370/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$298/wk
80.0%
Owner occupied
120.0%
14.0%
Renter occupied

Lifestyle & Demographics

6
Walk score
0
10
Transit score
0
10
Bike score
0
292
Population
25
58
Median age
33

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

13
Schools nearby
13
960
Avg ICSEA
960

Climate

Annual rainfall
Mean max (Jan)

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