Compare
Normalised poorly on purpose: different species hypotheses, detection infrastructure, and exposure. Do not rank beaches by historical attack counts.
Default pair is Manly (NSW) vs Sorrento (WA). Query ?a=esperance-wa&b=gnaraloo-wa
A · Manly
Northern Beaches · NSW
MODERATE26/100Confidence MODERATE12 Nov 2026, 6:01 pm · 0.1.0-dev
- Area roll-up of 5 sub-locations (0.5×max + 0.5×mean public index)
- Highest localised index: Queenscliff (26/100 · MODERATE)
- Sub-location precision limited where data is MOCK or incomplete
Shark observation coverage: NONE
B · Sorrento
Perth Metro · WA
MODERATE30.5/100Confidence MODERATE12 Nov 2026, 3:14 pm · 0.1.0-dev
- No live shark detections — this is not an operational alert
- Water temperature (~21.6°C) favours tiger shark thermal suitability
Shark observation coverage: NONE
Why these numbers are not comparable as a league table
- NSW uses global development species weights; WA uses regional hypotheses.
- Neither coast has a live authorised shark-detection feed in vShark.
- Open-Meteo centroids differ; SST is not a beach sensor on either side.
- Human exposure is a coarse proxy, not a count of people in the water.
- A higher index is not “more dangerous today” in an actuarial sense.