Foxground vs Rose Valley
Rose Valley is the younger of the two, with a median age of 43 against 60 in Foxground. In both, the large majority of households own their home and the large majority of homes are detached houses. In Foxground, about half of households are people living alone. In Rose Valley, the large majority of households are couple families. Houses cost more in Rose Valley: a median of $4.7 million, against $2.3 million in Foxground, though rent is higher in Foxground. On these figures, Foxground tends to suit people living alone, older residents, and buyers on a tighter budget, while Rose Valley suits families with children and couples.
Which one suits you?
There is no overall winner — the suburb that suits a family with school-age kids is routinely the wrong one for someone commuting into the city. So each of these answers its own question, against a checklist you can see, using the same figures in the tables below.
Families with school-age kids
Rose Valley
ahead on the one thing that separates them
- is already more of a family suburb (77% vs 50%)
Weighs schools, house stock, parks, childcare, and who already lives there.
First-home buyers
They split
one each way, out of the 2 things we measure here
- Foxground has cheaper houses ($2,300,000 vs $4,700,000)
- Rose Valley leaves households under less mortgage stress (20% vs 29%)
Weighs house prices and mortgage stress.
Renters
Rose Valley
ahead on 2 of the 2 things we measure here
- has cheaper rent ($300/wk vs $570/wk)
- leaves renters under less rental stress (14% vs 26%)
Weighs rent and rental stress.
Commuting to the city
Rose Valley
ahead on 2 of the 3 things we measure here
- sits closer to the CBD (131.2 km vs 140.4 km)
- has a shorter drive in (112 min vs 119 min)
Weighs distance, drive time, and walkability.
Downsizers and retirees
Foxground
ahead on the one thing that separates them
- has more residents already 65 and over (35% vs 18%)
Weighs who already lives there, GPs, and walkability.
Investors
Too close to call
Nothing among the 1 things we measure here separates them by enough to be worth acting on.
Weighs population growth.
Where they sit
Foxground and Rose Valley drawn to the same scale. Both outlines are shown together, so the map answers whether they share a border and how their areas compare.
Bars start at zero. Scores, risks and rankings are drawn against their full 0–100 range; other rows are drawn in proportion to the larger of the two.
Side by side, out of 100
Risks are inverted — shown as safety and low exposure — so a longer bar always means better.
Demographics
Foxground rents higher ($570/wk vs $300/wk); Foxground has more residents (164 vs 87).
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 164 +47% vs other | 87 |
| Population trend (2016 → 2021) | +11.6% | +14.5% |
| Median age | 60 | 43 |
| Median household income | $112,632/yr | $111,800/yr |
| Median weekly rent | $570/wk +47% vs other | $300/wk |
Age profile
Share of residents in each band, 2021 Census.
Bars are drawn against the largest share shown (28.0%).
Who lives together
Household composition, 2021 Census.
Who owns and who rents
Occupied private dwellings by tenure, 2021 Census.
What people live in
Occupied private dwellings by structure, 2021 Census.
Qualifications
Highest non-school qualification, residents 15+, 2021 Census.
Bars are drawn against the largest share shown (26.8%).
Property market
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $2,300,000 | $4,700,000 |
| Median unit price | — same for both | |
| Median land price | — | $4,050,000 |
Zoning mix
Foxground has more land zoned for conservation (70% vs 34%); Rose Valley has more rural and farming land (64% vs 30%).
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental | 70% | 34% |
| Rural and farming | 30% | 64% |
| Infrastructure and transport | 0% | 1% |
| Zoning sets what may be built, not what is there today. A single address can sit in a different zone to the suburb around it. Zones as at 2026-09. | ||
Development activity
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| New dwellings approved | 159 across Kiama same for both | |
| Approvals change year on year | -35% same for both | |
Ranking within NSW
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| House price | Higher than 88% of NSW | Higher than 98% of NSW |
| Income | Higher than 78% of NSW | Higher than 77% of NSW |
| Schools | — same for both | |
| Walkability | Higher than 48% of NSW | Higher than 60% of NSW |
| Affordability | Higher than 16% of NSW | Higher than 2% of NSW |
| EV adoption | Higher than 84% of NSW same for both | |
| NBN connectivity | Higher than 61% of NSW | Higher than 55% of NSW |
Liveability
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Grade | — same for both | |
| Score | — same for both | |
| Socio-economic band | very advantaged area decile 10/10 same for both | |
Risk profile
Foxground carries more bushfire risk (66 vs 0).
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Bushfire | Moderate 66/100 | None 0/100 |
| Crime | Low 13/100 | — |
| Flood | Not mapped no mapped data here same for both | |
| Coastal erosion | None 0/100 same for both | |
| Aircraft noise | None 0/100 same for both | |
| Industrial facilities nearby | 0 within 5 km same for both | |
Schools
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Inside the suburb | 0 same for both | |
| Rated above peers | 0 same for both | |
| Rated at peers | 0 same for both | |
| Rated below peers | 0 same for both | |
Amenities in the suburb
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Waterways | 3 | 5 |
Mobility
Foxground sits further from the CBD (140.4 km vs 131.2 km).
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Walkability score | 5/100 | 12/100 |
| Distance to Sydney | 140.4 km +7% vs other | 131.2 km |
| Drive time (normal traffic) | 119 min | 112 min |
| Electric vehicle share | 1.2% postcode 2534 same for both | |
| Rooftop solar per 100 dwellings | 46 postcode 2534 same for both | |
How people get to work
Method of travel on census day 2021 — which fell during COVID restrictions, so working from home is inflated and every travel mode understated.
Bars are drawn against the largest share shown (66.0%).
Setting
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Elevation | 92 m above sea level, at the suburb centre | 36 m above sea level, at the suburb centre |
| Distance to the ocean | 7.2 km | 3.0 km 3.0 km to a named beach |
NBN connectivity
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Connectivity score | 30/100 same for both | |
| Most common technology | Fixed wireless same for both | |
| Full-fibre (FTTP) share | 0% 100 premises | 0% 39 premises |
Climate
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual rainfall | 974 mm same for both | |
| Summer max (Jan) | — same for both | |
| Winter min (Jul) | — same for both | |
Air quality (annual mean)
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| PM2.5 | 5.1 µg/m³ same for both | |
| PM10 | 14.3 µg/m³ same for both | |
| NO₂ | 0.37 pphm same for both | |
Council rates
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Average residential rate | $1,898/yr same for both | |
| Council | Kiama same for both | |
Federal electorate
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Division | Gilmore same for both | |
| Member | Fiona Phillips same for both | |
| Party | Australian Labor Party same for both | |
First Home Owner Grant
| Foxground | Rose Valley | |
|---|---|---|
| Grant amount | $10,000 same for both | |
| Property price cap | $600,000 same for both | |
| Eligibility | New same for both | |
Tags
More comparisons
Other comparisons with Foxground
Other comparisons with Rose Valley
Information shown is provided as-is from Australian government and commercial data sources.
Always verify with the relevant authority before making property decisions.
See Data Sources and How We Calculate for details.