Camden vs Wimbledon
A side-by-side comparison of rent, transport, lifestyle and overall liveability.
Our recommendation
Wimbledon offers better value — similar or better scores at a lower rent.
Rent comparison
Camden
CamdenWimbledonwinner
MertonCamden is £200/month cheaper on a 1-bed flat.
Lifestyle comparison
Lively
Green space
Nightlife
Café density
Gym density
Walkability
Food scene
Young professionals
Safety
Transport
Camden
Loud, scruffy, music-loving and unapologetically touristy on weekends — with Regent's Park and the canal as a quieter counterweight.
- ✓Excellent food and drink scene
- ✓Famous markets and live music
- ✓Direct Northern line into the City
- ✓Regent's Park on the doorstep
- →Very busy at weekends
- →Pockets feel rough at night
- →Rent premium for the postcode
Wimbledon
Suburban, leafy, family-friendly — and home to one of the biggest urban commons in the world.
- ✓Wimbledon Common
- ✓Safe, quiet streets
- ✓Fast rail into Waterloo
- →Quiet at night
- →Slower journeys to East London
Frequently asked questions
Is Camden or Wimbledon better to live in?
Wimbledon offers better value — similar or better scores at a lower rent.
Is Camden cheaper than Wimbledon?
Wimbledon is cheaper — average 1-bed rent is £1,700 vs £1,900 in Camden, a saving of £200/month.
Which has better transport — Camden or Wimbledon?
Camden scores higher for transport (8/10 vs 7/10). Camden is served by Camden Town and Chalk Farm. Wimbledon is served by Wimbledon.
Compare Camden with similar areas
Still deciding? Try the discovery tool
Enter your commute, salary and lifestyle preferences to get a personalised neighbourhood ranking.
Open the discovery tool →