Harrow vs Earlsfield
A side-by-side comparison of rent, transport, lifestyle and overall liveability.
Our recommendation
Harrow offers better value — similar or better scores at a lower rent.
Rent comparison
Harrowwinner
HarrowEarlsfield
WandsworthEarlsfield is £250/month cheaper on a 1-bed flat.
Lifestyle comparison
Lively
Green space
Nightlife
Café density
Gym density
Walkability
Food scene
Young professionals
Safety
Transport
Harrow
A west/north-west hub with Metropolitan line speed, broad shopping, and more affordability than inner west London.
- ✓Fast Metropolitan line to central London
- ✓Strong town-centre amenities
- ✓Better value than Zone 2 west London
- →Outer-zone commute cost
- →Less London village charm
- →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 Harrow or Earlsfield better to live in?
Harrow offers better value — similar or better scores at a lower rent.
Is Harrow cheaper than Earlsfield?
Harrow is cheaper — average 1-bed rent is £1,350 vs £1,600 in Earlsfield, a saving of £250/month.
Which has better transport — Harrow or Earlsfield?
Harrow scores higher for transport (8/10 vs 6/10). Harrow is served by Harrow-on-the-Hill. Earlsfield is served by Earlsfield.
Compare Harrow 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 →