Wimbledon vs Earlsfield
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
Wimbledon
MertonEarlsfieldwinner
WandsworthWimbledon 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
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
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 Wimbledon or Earlsfield better to live in?
Earlsfield offers better value — similar or better scores at a lower rent.
Is Wimbledon cheaper than Earlsfield?
Earlsfield is cheaper — average 1-bed rent is £1,600 vs £1,700 in Wimbledon, a saving of £100/month.
Which has better transport — Wimbledon or Earlsfield?
Wimbledon scores higher for transport (7/10 vs 6/10). Wimbledon is served by Wimbledon. Earlsfield is served by Earlsfield.
Compare Wimbledon 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 →