Side by sideSuburb comparison

Tunglebung vs Lower Bottle Creek.

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

On school quality, the average ICSEA across schools serving Tunglebung (816) sits above Lower Bottle Creek (783). Lower Bottle Creek skews owner-occupied (115%), Tunglebung runs more rental-dense (100% 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

Tunglebung edges out on average school ICSEA (816 vs 783). Lower Bottle Creek also has a higher family-household share (69% vs 54%), so the catchment community skews family-heavy.

Common questionsTunglebung vs Lower Bottle Creek

Common questions

Does Tunglebung or Lower Bottle Creek have better schools?

On average school ICSEA (the ACARA index that benchmarks educational advantage), Tunglebung scores 816 vs 783 in Lower Bottle Creek. 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

Tunglebung
Metric
Lower Bottle Creek

Price & Market

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

Rental

$240/wk
Rent (house / wk)
$240/wk
$175/wk
Rent (unit / wk)
$350/wk
100.0%
Owner occupied
115.0%
23.0%
Renter occupied

Lifestyle & Demographics

0
Walk score
0
0
Transit score
0
0
Bike score
0
42
Population
43
53
Median age
57

Risk & Hazard

Flood class
Bushfire risk

Schools

3
Schools nearby
2
816
Avg ICSEA
783

Climate

Annual rainfall
Mean max (Jan)

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