Earlsfield vs Barnes
A side-by-side comparison of rent, transport, lifestyle and overall liveability.
Our recommendation
Earlsfield offers better value — similar or better scores at a lower rent.
Rent comparison
Earlsfieldwinner
WandsworthBarnes
Richmond upon ThamesBarnes 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
Earlsfield
A quieter Wandsworth option with rail to Waterloo, local pubs, and access to south-west commons.
- ✓Quick rail to Waterloo
- ✓Calmer than Clapham
- ✓Good local pubs and gyms
- →No tube
- →Limited nightlife
- →Can feel expensive for rail-only access
Barnes
Riverside village living with commons, pubs, and premium prices for a slower west London rhythm.
- ✓Thames Path and Barnes Common
- ✓Village character
- ✓Quiet, high-quality residential streets
- →Expensive
- →Rail-only commute
- →Very quiet nightlife
Frequently asked questions
Is Earlsfield or Barnes better to live in?
Earlsfield offers better value — similar or better scores at a lower rent.
Is Earlsfield cheaper than Barnes?
Earlsfield is cheaper — average 1-bed rent is £1,600 vs £1,800 in Barnes, a saving of £200/month.
Which has better transport — Earlsfield or Barnes?
Earlsfield scores higher for transport (6/10 vs 4/10). Earlsfield is served by Earlsfield. Barnes is served by Barnes.
Compare Earlsfield 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 →