Forest Hill vs Earlsfield
A side-by-side comparison of rent, transport, lifestyle and overall liveability.
Our recommendation
Earlsfield scores higher overall, though Forest Hill may offer better affordability.
Rent comparison
Forest Hillwinner
LewishamEarlsfield
WandsworthEarlsfield is £100/month cheaper on a 1-bed flat.
Lifestyle comparison
Lively
Green space
Nightlife
Café density
Gym density
Walkability
Food scene
Young professionals
Safety
Transport
Forest Hill
Leafy Overground living with views, the Horniman Museum, and better value than nearby Dulwich villages.
- ✓Horniman Museum and gardens
- ✓Overground connection
- ✓Good value for green south-east London
- →Hilly streets
- →Slower to west London
- →Nightlife is limited
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
Frequently asked questions
Is Forest Hill or Earlsfield better to live in?
Earlsfield scores higher overall, though Forest Hill may offer better affordability.
Is Forest Hill cheaper than Earlsfield?
Forest Hill is cheaper — average 1-bed rent is £1,500 vs £1,600 in Earlsfield, a saving of £100/month.
Which has better transport — Forest Hill or Earlsfield?
Forest Hill and Earlsfield score equally on transport (6/10). Forest Hill is served by Forest Hill. Earlsfield is served by Earlsfield.
Compare Forest Hill 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 →