Sugarloaf vs Tabbil Creek
Tabbil Creek is the younger of the two, with a median age of 38 against 57 in Sugarloaf. In both, the large majority of households own their home and the large majority of homes are detached houses. In Sugarloaf, about half of households are people living alone. In Tabbil Creek, the large majority of households are couple families. On these figures, Sugarloaf tends to suit older residents, while Tabbil Creek 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
They split
one each way, out of the 6 things we measure here
- Sugarloaf carries lower crime risk (25/100 vs 65/100)
- Tabbil Creek is already more of a family suburb (100% vs 53%)
Weighs schools, house stock, crime, parks, childcare, and who already lives there.
First-home buyers
Sugarloaf
ahead on the one thing that separates them
- has cheaper land ($320,000 vs $785,000)
Weighs house prices, land prices, and mortgage stress.
Renters
Sugarloaf
ahead on the one thing that separates them
- has cheaper rent ($335/wk vs $405/wk)
Weighs rent and rental stress.
Commuting to the city
Tabbil Creek
ahead on 3 of the 3 things we measure here
- is more walkable (14/100 vs 0/100)
- has a shorter drive in (161 min vs 175 min)
- sits closer to the CBD (212 km vs 223.1 km)
Weighs distance, drive time, and walkability.
Downsizers and retirees
Sugarloaf
ahead on 2 of the 4 things we measure here
- has more residents already 65 and over (25% vs 9%)
- carries lower crime risk (25/100 vs 65/100)
- But Tabbil Creek is more walkable (14/100 vs 0/100)
Weighs who already lives there, GPs, walkability, and crime.
Investors
Tabbil Creek
ahead on the one thing that separates them
- is growing faster (32.5% vs -8.5%)
Weighs population growth.
Where they sit
Sugarloaf and Tabbil Creek 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
Sugarloaf skews older (57 vs 38); Tabbil Creek has higher household incomes ($89,336 vs $71,500).
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Population | 65 +18% vs other | 53 |
| Population trend (2016 → 2021) | -8.5% | +32.5% |
| Median age | 57 | 38 |
| Median household income | $71,500/yr | $89,336/yr +25% vs other |
| Median weekly rent | $335/wk | $405/wk +21% vs other |
Age profile
Share of residents in each band, 2021 Census.
Bars are drawn against the largest share shown (34.0%).
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 (24.6%).
Property market
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Median house price | $1,745,000 | $1,635,000 |
| Median unit price | — same for both | |
| Median land price | $320,000 | $785,000 |
Zoning mix
Sugarloaf has more rural and farming land (99% vs 73%).
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Rural and farming | 99% | 73% |
| Residential | 0% | 13% |
| Environmental | 1% | 11% |
| Infrastructure and transport | 0% | 1% |
| Parks and recreation | 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
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| New dwellings approved | 55 across Dungog same for both | |
| Approvals change year on year | -23% same for both | |
Ranking within NSW
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| House price | Higher than 81% of NSW | Higher than 78% of NSW |
| Income | — | Higher than 57% of NSW |
| Schools | — same for both | |
| Walkability | Higher than 38% of NSW | Higher than 64% of NSW |
| Affordability | — | Higher than 21% of NSW |
| EV adoption | Higher than 61% of NSW same for both | |
| NBN connectivity | Higher than 43% of NSW | Higher than 76% of NSW |
Liveability
Tabbil Creek is more walkable (14 vs 0).
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Grade | — same for both | |
| Score | — same for both | |
| Socio-economic band | mid-range socio-economic decile 6/10 same for both | |
Risk profile
Tabbil Creek carries more bushfire risk (24 vs 0); Tabbil Creek carries more crime risk (65 vs 25).
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Bushfire | None 0/100 | Low 24/100 |
| Crime | Low 25/100 | Moderate 65/100 |
| 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 | 1 within 5 km |
Schools
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Waterways | 8 | 11 |
Mobility
Sugarloaf sits further from the CBD (223.1 km vs 212 km).
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Walkability score | 0/100 | 14/100 |
| Distance to Sydney | 223.1 km +5% vs other | 212 km |
| Drive time (normal traffic) | 175 min | 161 min |
| Electric vehicle share | 0.6% postcode 2420 same for both | |
| Rooftop solar per 100 dwellings | 52 postcode 2420 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 (100.0%).
Setting
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Elevation | 192 m above sea level, at the suburb centre | 59 m above sea level, at the suburb centre |
| Distance to the ocean | 40.0 km | 34.0 km |
NBN connectivity
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Connectivity score | 28/100 | 69/100 |
| Most common technology | Fixed wireless | Fibre to the premises |
| Full-fibre (FTTP) share | 0% 36 premises | 56% 52 premises |
Climate
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual rainfall | 1,327 mm same for both | |
| Summer max (Jan) | — same for both | |
| Winter min (Jul) | — same for both | |
Council rates
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Average residential rate | $1,646/yr same for both | |
| Council | Dungog same for both | |
Federal electorate
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Division | Lyne same for both | |
| Member | Alison Penfold same for both | |
| Party | The Nationals same for both | |
First Home Owner Grant
| Sugarloaf | Tabbil Creek | |
|---|---|---|
| Grant amount | $10,000 same for both | |
| Property price cap | $600,000 same for both | |
| Eligibility | New same for both | |
Tags
Sugarloaf
More comparisons
Other comparisons with Sugarloaf
Other comparisons with Tabbil Creek
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.