Side by sideSuburb comparison

Logan Village vs Chambers Flat.

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 questionsLogan Village vs Chambers Flat

Common questions

Does Logan Village or Chambers Flat 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

Logan Village
Metric
Chambers Flat

Price & Market

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

Rental

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

Lifestyle & Demographics

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

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

19
Schools nearby
20
988
Avg ICSEA
974

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).