Side by sideSuburb comparison

Roebourne vs Wickham.

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

Wickham scores higher on walkability (0/100 vs 6/100 ), useful if you're optimising for a car-light household. Roebourne skews owner-occupied (19%), Wickham runs more rental-dense (5% 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 questionsRoebourne vs Wickham

Common questions

Which is more walkable, Roebourne or Wickham?

Wickham scores 6/100 on walkability vs 0/100. 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

Roebourne
Metric
Wickham

Price & Market

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

Rental

$150/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$120/wk
$150/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$115/wk
19.0%
Owner occupied
5.0%
64.0%
Renter occupied
92.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

0
Walk score
6
0
Transit score
0
0
Bike score
0
975
Population
2,022
34
Median age
31

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

2
Schools nearby
2
796
Avg ICSEA
796

Climate

Annual rainfall
Mean max (Jan)

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