Side by sideSuburb comparison

Scotts Flat vs Lower Belford.

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

On school quality, the average ICSEA across schools serving Lower Belford (962) sits above Scotts Flat (939). Lower Belford skews owner-occupied (86%), Scotts Flat runs more rental-dense (29% 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

Lower Belford edges out on average school ICSEA (962 vs 939). Lower Belford also has a higher family-household share (85% vs 33%), so the catchment community skews family-heavy.

Common questionsScotts Flat vs Lower Belford

Common questions

Does Scotts Flat or Lower Belford have better schools?

On average school ICSEA (the ACARA index that benchmarks educational advantage), Lower Belford scores 962 vs 939 in Scotts Flat. 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

Scotts Flat
Metric
Lower Belford

Price & Market

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

Rental

$335/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$415/wk
$233/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$300/wk
29.0%
Owner occupied
86.0%
43.0%
Renter occupied
8.0%

Lifestyle & Demographics

Walk score
0
Transit score
0
Bike score
0
43
Population
407
32
Median age
46

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

7
Schools nearby
14
939
Avg ICSEA
962

Climate

1143 mm
Annual rainfall
1143 mm
24.7°C
Mean max (Jan)
24.7°C

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