Side by sideSuburb comparison

Roches Beach vs Clarendon Vale.

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

On school quality, the average ICSEA across schools serving Clarendon Vale (999) sits above Roches Beach (958). Roches Beach skews owner-occupied (97%), Clarendon Vale runs more rental-dense (32% 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

Clarendon Vale edges out on average school ICSEA (999 vs 958). Roches Beach also has a higher family-household share (88% vs 68%), so the catchment community skews family-heavy.

Common questionsRoches Beach vs Clarendon Vale

Common questions

Does Roches Beach or Clarendon Vale have better schools?

On average school ICSEA (the ACARA index that benchmarks educational advantage), Clarendon Vale scores 999 vs 958 in Roches Beach. 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

Roches Beach
Metric
Clarendon Vale

Price & Market

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

Rental

$400/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$320/wk
$350/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$270/wk
97.0%
Owner occupied
32.0%
7.0%
Renter occupied
65.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

Walk score
6
Transit score
0
Bike score
100
220
Population
1,635
48
Median age
29

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

12
Schools nearby
20
958
Avg ICSEA
999

Climate

586 mm
Annual rainfall
586 mm
21.8°C
Mean max (Jan)
21.8°C

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