Two neighbouring Sydney suburbs, 1.3 km apart, on the same open data. Acacia Gardens scores higher on 8 of 10 measures.
| Acacia Gardens | Kings Park | |
|---|---|---|
| Active | 2 | 39 |
| Safety | 86 | 20 |
| Wealth | 76 | 45 |
| Value | 93 | 83 |
| Parks | 11 | 2 |
| Cafés | 13 | 46 |
| Transit | 58 | 26 |
| Green space | 70 | 50 |
| Active & healthy | 34 | 31 |
| Schools nearby (OSM) | 74 | 8 |
| Median rent | $540/wk | $445/wk |
| Median house price (Jan–Mar 2026) | $1,350,000 | $1,278,000 |
| House sales this quarter | 66 | 114 |
| Population | 3,668 | 3,476 |
| Full profile | Acacia Gardens in full | Kings Park in full |
Scores are percentiles across all 422 Sydney suburbs: 100 is the best in the city, 50 is mid-table. Highlighted figures lead the row. How we rank suburbs.
Acacia Gardens scores higher for safety (recorded crime per 1,000 residents) between the two, based on official crime statistics.
Kings Park has the lower median house price of the two ($1,278,000 vs $1,350,000).
Acacia Gardens scores higher on 8 of 10 measures across safety, activity, value, parks and cafés — see the full breakdown below, or the complete profile for Acacia Gardens or Kings Park.
Updated October 2026. Compare other Sydney suburbs →