Side by sideSuburb comparison

Oaks vs Bishopsbourne.

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

On school quality, the average ICSEA across schools serving Oaks (965) sits above Bishopsbourne (943). Oaks skews owner-occupied (113%), Bishopsbourne runs more rental-dense (74% 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

Oaks edges out on average school ICSEA (965 vs 943). Oaks also has a higher family-household share (113% vs 78%), so the catchment community skews family-heavy.

Common questionsOaks vs Bishopsbourne

Common questions

Does Oaks or Bishopsbourne have better schools?

On average school ICSEA (the ACARA index that benchmarks educational advantage), Oaks scores 965 vs 943 in Bishopsbourne. 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

Oaks
Metric
Bishopsbourne

Price & Market

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

Rental

$250/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$260/wk
$300/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$195/wk
113.0%
Owner occupied
74.0%
38.0%
Renter occupied
8.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

0
Walk score
0
0
Transit score
0
0
Bike score
0
24
Population
137
58
Median age
47

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

8
Schools nearby
2
965
Avg ICSEA
943

Climate

Annual rainfall
Mean max (Jan)

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