Port Wakefield vs Clinton.
Suburb-to-suburb comparison across price, growth, lifestyle, schools and risk. Port Wakefield edges out on more headline metrics in this comparison.
Port Wakefield scores higher on walkability (16/100 vs 6/100 ), useful if you're optimising for a car-light household. On school quality, the average ICSEA across schools serving Port Wakefield (971) sits above Clinton (948). Clinton skews owner-occupied (83%), Port Wakefield runs more rental-dense (55% owner).
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
Port Wakefield edges out on average school ICSEA (971 vs 948).
Common questions
Does Port Wakefield or Clinton have better schools?
On average school ICSEA (the ACARA index that benchmarks educational advantage), Port Wakefield scores 971 vs 948 in Clinton. 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.
Which is more walkable, Port Wakefield or Clinton?
Port Wakefield scores 16/100 on walkability vs 6/100. 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
Price & Market
Rental
Lifestyle & Demographics
Risk & Hazard
Schools
Climate
Green dot = better on that metric (lower price, higher growth, higher walkability, lower risk).
Compare Port Wakefield against another suburb