Side by sideSuburb comparison

Parkesbourne vs Run-O-Waters.

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

On school quality, the average ICSEA across schools serving Parkesbourne (973) sits above Run-O-Waters (970).

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

Parkesbourne edges out on average school ICSEA (973 vs 970). Run-O-Waters also has a higher family-household share (85% vs 71%), so the catchment community skews family-heavy.

Common questionsParkesbourne vs Run-O-Waters

Common questions

Does Parkesbourne or Run-O-Waters have better schools?

On average school ICSEA (the ACARA index that benchmarks educational advantage), Parkesbourne scores 973 vs 970 in Run-O-Waters. 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

Parkesbourne
Metric
Run-O-Waters

Price & Market

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

Rental

$320/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$320/wk
$175/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$475/wk
91.0%
Owner occupied
93.0%
7.0%
Renter occupied
7.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

0
Walk score
0
0
Transit score
0
0
Bike score
0
152
Population
605
51
Median age
46

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

16
Schools nearby
15
973
Avg ICSEA
970

Climate

Annual rainfall
Mean max (Jan)

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