Earlsfield vs Kingston
A side-by-side comparison of rent, transport, lifestyle and overall liveability.
Our recommendation
Earlsfield scores higher overall, though it comes at a rent premium over Kingston.
Rent comparison
Earlsfield
WandsworthKingstonwinner
Kingston upon ThamesEarlsfield is £150/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
Kingston
Thames-side outer south-west London with a strong town centre, river walks, and more space.
- ✓Large retail and riverside amenities
- ✓Good access to Richmond Park and the Thames
- ✓More space than inner south-west
- →Longer commute into central London
- →Outer-zone travel
- →Less useful for east London jobs
Frequently asked questions
Is Earlsfield or Kingston better to live in?
Earlsfield scores higher overall, though it comes at a rent premium over Kingston.
Is Earlsfield cheaper than Kingston?
Kingston is cheaper — average 1-bed rent is £1,450 vs £1,600 in Earlsfield, a saving of £150/month.
Which has better transport — Earlsfield or Kingston?
Earlsfield scores higher for transport (6/10 vs 5/10). Earlsfield is served by Earlsfield. Kingston is served by Kingston.
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 →