Side by sideSuburb comparison

Mount Austin vs Glenfield Park.

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

Glenfield Park scores higher on walkability (2/100 vs 12/100 ), useful if you're optimising for a car-light household. Glenfield Park skews owner-occupied (61%), Mount Austin runs more rental-dense (51% 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

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 questionsMount Austin vs Glenfield Park

Common questions

Which is more walkable, Mount Austin or Glenfield Park?

Glenfield Park scores 12/100 on walkability vs 2/100. 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

Mount Austin
Metric
Glenfield Park

Price & Market

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

Rental

$300/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$300/wk
$250/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$330/wk
51.0%
Owner occupied
61.0%
45.0%
Renter occupied
35.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

2
Walk score
12
0
Transit score
20
100
Bike score
100
4,035
Population
5,078
37
Median age
35

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

20
Schools nearby
20
947
Avg ICSEA
947

Climate

585 mm
Annual rainfall
585 mm
31.1°C
Mean max (Jan)
31.1°C

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