Farmers Market Research
15 KPIs for Every City & State Delivered Monthly

Explain & Improve farmers.com's Search Traffic By Comparing To All 8,137 Insurance Companies Or Agencies In USA

Who Is This For
Just a Few Benefits

Farmers Managers
Founders, Partners, Business Development & Marketing Directors
Farmers Personnel
Business Analysts, Digital Marketing Experts, SEO Experts, etc.
Other Parties
Journalists, Salesmen, Investors, Service Providers, etc.

Get a snapshot of your online presence
Compare with competitors & track month-to-month movements
Get a full picture of your competition
National or regional (state/county) & local (city/neighborhood)
Enter new markets
Or merge with/acquire another business

Real-World Farmers Report, December 2024 (1% Sample of All Data)

Google search results collected from every zip-code in America. Reported at neighborhood, city, county, state, and national levels.

National Overview
City Overview
California
Houston
National
Competitors
Local
Competitors
RAW Rankings

National Overview

State	Competition			Business Intelligence Metrics			RAW Data (Google Search Results across all ZIPs)
State	Websites	Competitors	Farmers Rank	Visibility	Reach	Average Position	Cities	ZIPs	Pages	Rankings	Top 1	Top 3	Top 10
USA	10,953	8,137	5	42.0%	135,471,613	6.8	27,379	32,654	477	34,256	402	2,491	34,253
California	870	609	5	42.2%	16,506,606	6.7	1,166	1,740	52	1,913	48	178	1,912
Texas	846	595	3	47.8%	13,319,407	6.1	1,360	1,917	62	2,088	41	263	2,087
Florida	768	578	5	40.1%	8,257,433	6.9	446	975	4	985	1	27	985
New York	791	600	5	33.7%	6,605,512	7.7	1,491	1,756	18	1,785	10	39	1,785
Ohio	670	548	3	48.4%	5,630,321	6.3	976	1,188	16	1,225	6	112	1,225
Illinois	670	490	5	38.1%	4,886,538	6.9	1,247	1,382	25	1,458	21	98	1,458
Pennsylvania	757	591	5	35.8%	4,576,926	7.5	1,604	1,781	27	1,818	11	49	1,818
Michigan	656	528	4	42.5%	4,236,092	6.7	833	976	15	1,019	4	68	1,019
Georgia	409	319	5	38.5%	3,966,953	7.2	574	726	10	739	1	18	739
North Carolina	506	406	5	37.6%	3,822,645	7.3	683	802	2	805	0	12	805
Virginia	406	322	5	43.1%	3,625,135	6.9	723	891	8	934	10	60	934
Indiana	472	373	3	51.3%	3,405,986	6.0	659	770	9	807	11	99	807
New Jersey	436	328	5	38.0%	3,377,033	7.1	537	593	22	631	15	43	631
Washington	337	274	5	43.9%	3,195,311	6.4	451	587	24	634	9	61	634
Tennessee	377	305	3	46.3%	3,075,434	6.4	514	622	12	641	9	41	641
Arizona	269	218	5	41.2%	2,862,721	6.7	247	396	19	439	6	44	439
Wisconsin	481	384	3	48.3%	2,789,620	6.4	694	769	10	796	9	80	796
Minnesota	530	418	3	50.1%	2,767,868	6.2	777	878	13	926	11	90	926
Massachusetts	517	422	4	40.2%	2,744,253	6.9	461	534	1	538	2	19	538
Missouri	427	337	3	43.5%	2,646,441	6.5	887	1,017	20	1,076	22	98	1,076
Maryland	338	254	5	39.2%	2,356,056	7.2	392	463	7	482	7	26	482
Colorado	296	242	5	42.1%	2,331,316	6.6	381	514	19	582	17	64	582
Alabama	320	261	4	44.5%	2,162,336	6.6	522	637	14	671	15	59	671
Kentucky	354	287	3	46.2%	2,056,332	6.6	698	758	2	759	0	26	759
Oklahoma	322	248	3	49.5%	1,940,301	6.1	557	646	38	750	24	118	750
South Carolina	278	223	5	38.9%	1,928,704	7.1	347	422	1	422	0	6	422
Louisiana	306	237	5	40.0%	1,865,308	7.1	431	510	2	514	0	15	514
Oregon	271	224	5	44.0%	1,796,909	6.2	355	414	19	478	14	73	478
Arkansas	261	209	3	50.0%	1,494,089	6.0	553	587	10	630	12	82	630
Utah	245	207	3	47.2%	1,437,741	6.2	246	284	11	327	14	47	327
Iowa	486	357	4	44.5%	1,395,115	6.5	890	933	6	943	0	72	943
Kansas	341	261	3	45.0%	1,307,956	6.5	616	692	18	730	7	60	730
Mississippi	250	193	5	39.9%	1,191,634	7.1	384	418	1	418	0	10	418
Connecticut	284	228	6	31.8%	1,140,660	7.9	234	279	15	298	4	20	298
Nevada	176	146	5	38.7%	1,131,897	6.7	92	168	7	188	4	19	187
Nebraska	308	241	4	43.7%	833,083	6.6	524	581	4	603	7	35	603
Idaho	199	170	3	48.0%	809,779	6.1	251	273	9	306	5	39	306
New Mexico	204	159	5	38.5%	804,784	6.6	327	361	14	423	11	58	423
West Virginia	277	224	5	39.6%	723,744	7.2	684	704	2	705	1	14	705
Hawaii	152	129	5	39.0%	554,566	7.0	82	93	1	93	0	2	93
Montana	229	186	4	49.1%	511,460	6.6	348	361	8	381	2	31	381
Maine	240	198	6	36.9%	491,717	7.5	421	425	1	425	0	7	425
New Hampshire	226	197	6	33.5%	449,600	7.7	238	248	1	248	0	1	248
South Dakota	217	174	3	44.7%	385,995	6.5	359	370	3	377	2	22	377
North Dakota	206	168	4	50.5%	379,430	6.2	367	381	1	387	2	45	387
Delaware	159	137	5	37.9%	360,119	7.0	52	66	2	68	2	5	68
Rhode Island	157	139	6	28.9%	305,885	8.1	64	77	1	82	2	5	82
Alaska	155	134	5	40.6%	299,838	6.2	218	235	1	235	0	7	235
Wyoming	152	130	3	46.7%	271,620	6.4	164	171	9	190	3	22	190
Vermont	197	170	6	31.7%	198,423	8.0	250	254	1	254	0	1	254

City Overview

City	State	Competition	Business Intelligence Metrics	RAW Data (Google Search Results across all ZIPs)
Houston	Texas	173	138	3	48.4%	1,543,811	6.3	96	5	102	1	10	102
Los Angeles	California	147	126	5	39.5%	969,853	7.0	62	1	62	0	0	61
Chicago	Illinois	152	133	6	32.5%	878,481	7.8	56	2	57	0	1	57
San Antonio	Texas	150	126	3	44.1%	784,776	6.4	59	3	63	0	6	63
Brooklyn	New York	137	115	5	29.6%	769,293	8.0	37	1	37	0	0	37
Miami	Florida	160	123	5	36.5%	685,304	7.4	55	1	55	0	0	55
New York City	New York	128	111	5	37.6%	610,359	7.5	47	3	52	4	5	52
Las Vegas	Nevada	132	111	6	37.4%	578,094	7.2	43	2	46	0	3	46
Phoenix	Arizona	146	126	5	39.0%	566,649	7.1	42	2	44	0	2	44
Dallas	Texas	149	126	5	40.6%	564,787	6.8	48	1	48	0	1	48
San Diego	California	134	116	4	41.5%	559,610	7.1	36	2	38	0	2	38
Minneapolis	Minnesota	134	119	4	49.6%	539,895	6.1	51	4	55	0	6	55
Philadelphia	Pennsylvania	138	117	6	32.8%	517,160	7.7	47	2	49	0	2	49
Austin	Texas	138	123	4	45.4%	493,774	6.7	44	3	48	1	4	48
Bronx	New York	118	103	6	33.9%	488,654	7.6	25	1	25	0	0	25
Indianapolis	Indiana	142	120	3	49.3%	469,237	6.3	37	3	39	1	3	39
Denver	Colorado	136	120	5	41.5%	451,444	6.7	38	3	40	1	2	40
Fort Worth	Texas	136	119	3	49.4%	450,091	6.0	32	4	36	1	6	36
San Jose	California	129	116	5	41.4%	434,264	6.5	28	3	33	4	5	33
Tucson	Arizona	126	106	4	47.6%	430,260	6.3	32	3	36	0	5	36
Seattle	Washington	142	127	5	44.2%	422,456	6.7	35	2	36	0	2	36
Cincinnati	Ohio	137	123	3	52.5%	422,127	5.6	45	3	48	2	7	48
San Francisco	California	121	106	4	47.9%	416,891	6.9	28	3	30	1	2	30
Columbus	Ohio	133	119	4	48.0%	406,146	6.3	30	1	30	0	2	30
Milwaukee	Wisconsin	129	116	3	47.4%	385,066	6.3	29	1	29	0	3	29
Saint Paul	Minnesota	138	121	3	48.0%	383,525	6.3	30	2	31	0	2	31
Orlando	Florida	133	115	5	38.0%	378,896	7.2	32	1	32	0	0	32
El Paso	Texas	122	110	5	46.7%	368,645	6.5	24	2	28	0	4	28
Louisville	Kentucky	134	121	3	48.4%	368,207	6.1	32	1	32	0	1	32
Portland	Oregon	130	112	5	40.0%	367,637	7.1	33	3	39	3	7	39
Saint Louis	Missouri	139	119	4	39.8%	364,915	7.0	45	3	47	0	3	47
Fort Lauderdale	Florida	133	115	5	42.9%	356,794	6.4	27	1	27	0	1	27
Memphis	Tennessee	124	110	3	49.6%	345,101	5.9	26	4	29	2	4	29
Oklahoma City	Oklahoma	142	127	4	48.9%	333,496	6.5	43	3	47	1	6	47
Jacksonville	Florida	141	122	5	38.2%	331,466	6.7	31	1	31	0	1	31
Sacramento	California	134	115	5	40.4%	325,356	6.9	28	1	28	0	0	28
Tampa	Florida	131	110	5	40.9%	324,018	6.9	27	1	27	0	0	27
Atlanta	Georgia	141	121	6	31.8%	314,498	7.8	39	1	39	0	0	39
Dayton	Ohio	125	115	3	59.2%	283,014	5.4	27	1	28	1	3	28
Charlotte	North Carolina	125	111	6	31.2%	282,823	7.8	24	1	24	0	0	24
Colorado Springs	Colorado	120	108	4	47.6%	277,872	6.0	30	2	37	1	7	37
Cleveland	Ohio	127	112	5	34.8%	261,169	7.5	29	2	30	0	1	30
Washington DC	District of Columbia	121	104	5	37.6%	256,942	7.3	28	1	29	0	1	29
Fresno	California	120	105	5	40.6%	244,651	6.9	18	1	18	0	1	18
Bakersfield	California	112	102	4	42.6%	238,445	6.5	11	1	11	0	0	11
Hollywood	Florida	114	103	3	50.2%	235,301	6.2	9	1	9	0	2	9
Baltimore	Maryland	121	109	5	37.1%	234,073	7.2	22	1	22	0	0	22
Detroit	Michigan	142	120	5	35.7%	228,467	7.2	25	1	25	0	1	25
Birmingham	Alabama	124	111	3	44.6%	223,030	6.9	30	1	30	0	2	30
Albuquerque	New Mexico	126	112	7	33.1%	217,196	8.0	17	1	17	0	0	17
Buffalo	New York	142	124	5	38.2%	214,844	7.3	28	2	29	0	2	29
Pittsburgh	Pennsylvania	135	123	6	31.1%	212,094	7.9	39	1	39	0	0	39
Kansas City	Missouri	139	128	4	36.7%	210,098	6.9	49	1	51	0	2	51
Arlington	Texas	122	107	3	52.4%	208,050	5.7	12	2	13	0	1	13
Omaha	Nebraska	132	118	4	37.6%	207,911	7.1	31	1	31	0	0	31
Salt Lake City	Utah	127	112	5	40.1%	194,968	6.9	19	2	20	0	1	20
Richmond	Virginia	117	104	3	49.6%	193,973	6.1	15	2	17	0	3	17
Mesa	Arizona	118	107	5	36.1%	193,236	7.3	13	1	13	0	0	13
Spring	Texas	114	103	4	48.9%	186,394	6.0	8	1	8	0	0	8
Knoxville	Tennessee	117	107	4	47.4%	183,129	6.5	17	1	17	0	0	17
Tulsa	Oklahoma	133	122	4	43.2%	182,146	6.8	28	2	29	0	1	29
New Orleans	Louisiana	126	113	5	42.5%	181,837	6.9	19	1	19	0	0	19
Aurora	Colorado	120	110	5	41.6%	180,983	7.3	11	2	12	0	1	12
Nashville	Tennessee	122	110	5	38.3%	175,518	7.0	22	1	22	0	0	22
Wichita	Kansas	134	117	4	41.8%	174,576	7.0	26	3	28	0	2	28
Pompano Beach	Florida	122	109	4	46.5%	172,285	6.1	10	2	11	0	2	11
Fort Wayne	Indiana	120	107	3	53.2%	169,446	5.4	16	1	16	0	3	16
Raleigh	North Carolina	122	110	6	30.8%	168,293	7.8	15	1	15	0	0	15
Spokane	Washington	113	104	4	45.7%	164,422	6.4	14	1	15	0	1	15
Whittier	California	108	98	1	83.7%	164,265	2.7	6	3	13	2	7	13
Honolulu	Hawaii	115	102	7	39.4%	163,923	7.1	11	1	11	0	0	11
Katy	Texas	112	102	5	47.7%	163,843	6.5	4	1	4	0	1	4
Madison	Wisconsin	115	106	3	55.0%	162,264	5.7	14	2	15	0	2	15
Rochester	New York	125	108	5	34.4%	162,026	7.3	24	2	25	0	1	25
Oakland	California	115	102	5	39.2%	161,508	6.7	14	2	15	0	1	15
Staten Island	New York	120	105	5	32.6%	154,560	7.8	12	2	13	0	1	13
Virginia Beach	Virginia	117	102	5	33.9%	152,347	7.7	12	1	12	0	0	12
Grand Rapids	Michigan	121	109	5	40.6%	149,415	7.0	12	1	12	0	1	12
Lexington	Kentucky	123	114	4	46.2%	147,631	6.4	15	1	15	0	1	15
Corpus Christi	Texas	122	111	5	44.8%	146,073	6.9	18	3	20	0	2	20
Riverside	California	113	102	5	39.1%	144,560	7.0	7	1	7	0	0	7
Laredo	Texas	126	110	3	52.3%	141,593	6.2	6	2	7	0	1	7
Lincoln	Nebraska	121	109	4	48.9%	141,543	6.4	22	1	23	0	2	23
Chesapeake	Virginia	113	101	3	59.3%	141,173	4.8	6	1	8	0	3	8
Long Beach	California	120	109	5	29.2%	139,819	8.0	12	1	12	0	0	12
Stockton	California	122	108	4	37.3%	139,562	7.2	12	1	12	0	0	12
Hialeah	Florida	120	106	5	38.0%	139,425	7.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Reno	Nevada	112	100	5	46.7%	138,532	6.7	12	1	12	0	0	12
Plano	Texas	112	103	4	43.4%	132,692	6.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Baton Rouge	Louisiana	125	109	5	34.8%	131,936	7.4	18	1	18	0	0	18
Lubbock	Texas	131	117	3	47.4%	131,267	6.4	14	1	14	0	0	14
Vancouver	Washington	116	107	4	40.2%	131,131	6.9	11	2	12	0	1	12
West Palm Beach	Florida	116	104	6	35.1%	130,043	7.6	12	1	12	0	0	12
Naples	Florida	125	111	5	41.4%	129,611	7.1	14	1	14	0	0	14
Gilbert	Arizona	109	99	5	54.0%	128,912	5.7	6	1	6	0	1	6
Akron	Ohio	122	112	4	47.4%	128,106	6.5	17	1	17	0	1	17
Tacoma	Washington	119	107	4	38.3%	127,587	7.0	20	2	21	0	1	21
Marietta	Georgia	116	106	6	39.3%	126,824	7.3	7	1	7	0	0	7
Durham	North Carolina	114	101	6	43.3%	125,760	7.0	8	1	8	0	0	8
Chandler	Arizona	114	103	5	46.8%	125,672	6.0	6	2	7	0	1	7
Silver Spring	Maryland	113	102	5	41.3%	125,253	6.9	7	1	7	0	0	7
Anaheim	California	114	102	5	33.7%	124,068	7.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Toledo	Ohio	120	111	5	40.2%	123,673	7.1	15	2	16	0	1	16
Corona	California	111	98	4	48.1%	123,643	6.6	5	2	6	0	1	6
Pensacola	Florida	123	113	5	46.0%	123,393	6.5	13	1	13	0	1	13
Glendale	Arizona	116	106	5	40.4%	123,268	7.1	9	1	10	0	1	10
Lakeland	Florida	115	105	3	47.7%	123,120	6.4	9	1	9	0	0	9
Littleton	Colorado	115	107	5	37.5%	121,906	7.2	10	1	10	0	0	10
Columbia	South Carolina	119	110	5	35.5%	121,804	7.5	14	1	14	0	0	14
Santa Ana	California	110	99	5	33.9%	121,219	7.5	6	1	6	0	0	6
Saint Petersburg	Florida	127	111	5	33.7%	119,968	7.4	16	1	16	0	0	16
Salem	Oregon	110	101	3	44.8%	119,346	6.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Alexandria	Virginia	115	103	5	33.5%	118,681	7.5	14	1	14	0	0	14
Mobile	Alabama	119	109	4	42.5%	115,226	6.6	18	2	19	0	2	19
Scottsdale	Arizona	121	108	5	38.3%	114,315	7.1	11	1	11	0	0	11
Bradenton	Florida	120	105	4	45.1%	114,101	6.7	10	1	10	0	0	10
Chattanooga	Tennessee	120	107	3	54.7%	113,799	5.7	15	3	17	1	3	17
Boise	Idaho	111	100	3	43.7%	112,004	6.7	9	1	9	0	1	9
Amarillo	Texas	117	105	3	48.3%	110,671	5.9	14	1	14	0	1	14
Roseville	California	106	95	1	78.6%	109,883	3.3	3	1	5	0	2	5
Lawrenceville	Georgia	121	109	6	42.6%	109,086	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Greensboro	North Carolina	116	103	6	33.0%	108,113	7.4	9	1	9	0	0	9
Fort Myers	Florida	121	112	4	42.8%	107,634	6.6	11	1	11	0	0	11
Irvine	California	112	101	5	39.9%	106,705	7.2	9	1	9	0	0	9
Fairfield	California	102	93	1	93.4%	106,516	1.5	2	3	6	1	4	6
Murrieta	California	106	96	2	80.3%	106,196	3.0	2	2	3	0	1	3
Springfield	Missouri	113	102	4	45.9%	105,810	5.6	7	1	8	1	2	8
Kissimmee	Florida	116	103	5	36.5%	105,500	7.3	7	1	7	0	0	7
Ogden	Utah	110	101	3	52.4%	105,469	5.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Reading	Pennsylvania	113	104	3	48.0%	103,390	6.0	10	2	12	1	2	12
Norfolk	Virginia	122	110	6	42.1%	103,315	7.0	14	1	14	0	0	14
Tallahassee	Florida	116	107	6	35.8%	103,178	7.3	10	1	10	0	0	10
Sarasota	Florida	118	106	5	41.2%	103,102	6.8	13	1	13	0	0	13
Shreveport	Louisiana	118	105	5	45.9%	102,488	6.6	12	1	12	0	0	12
Muskegon	Michigan	111	100	1	78.5%	101,455	2.8	5	2	9	1	4	9
Winston Salem	North Carolina	118	106	5	38.2%	100,904	7.2	9	1	9	0	0	9
Fayetteville	North Carolina	121	107	5	41.2%	100,638	7.0	8	1	8	0	1	8
Des Moines	Iowa	117	107	5	45.0%	100,535	6.1	11	2	12	0	2	12
Garland	Texas	106	96	6	42.0%	100,044	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Savannah	Georgia	114	104	6	41.4%	99,792	6.9	10	1	10	0	0	10
Jersey City	New Jersey	109	101	7	37.4%	97,840	6.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Greenville	South Carolina	109	101	5	44.4%	97,371	6.4	9	1	9	0	0	9
Anchorage	Alaska	118	108	6	39.8%	97,162	6.8	12	1	12	0	0	12
Irving	Texas	111	102	5	40.2%	96,682	7.0	6	1	6	0	0	6
Billings	Montana	106	98	3	70.1%	96,294	3.8	4	2	6	0	2	6
Conroe	Texas	111	101	3	59.9%	96,103	5.0	7	3	10	0	4	10
Boca Raton	Florida	119	106	4	42.9%	95,243	6.7	9	1	9	0	1	9
Henderson	Nevada	111	100	7	31.3%	94,777	7.9	8	1	8	0	0	8
Santa Rosa	California	112	100	4	43.8%	94,570	6.7	6	1	6	0	0	6
Little Rock	Arkansas	117	106	4	43.1%	94,003	6.6	12	1	12	0	0	12
Newark	New Jersey	112	101	7	33.4%	93,751	7.9	9	1	9	0	0	9
Fremont	California	107	98	5	39.9%	92,980	6.5	4	2	5	0	1	5
Wilmington	Delaware	114	105	5	42.2%	92,631	7.0	10	1	10	0	0	10
Hamilton	Ohio	110	102	3	67.3%	92,327	4.3	3	1	3	0	1	3
Edmond	Oklahoma	109	100	4	53.6%	92,101	5.4	5	2	6	0	1	6
Hayward	California	108	98	4	47.9%	92,060	6.5	4	2	5	0	1	5
Murfreesboro	Tennessee	114	105	5	49.0%	91,394	6.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Huntsville	Alabama	118	108	5	46.5%	91,189	6.5	11	1	11	0	1	11
Garden Grove	California	110	97	3	51.8%	91,091	5.8	5	2	7	0	2	7
Midland	Texas	113	102	4	56.5%	90,357	5.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Rancho Cucamonga	California	109	98	4	50.2%	88,735	5.5	4	1	5	0	1	5
Woodbridge	Virginia	106	96	5	41.7%	88,268	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Fredericksburg	Virginia	115	103	3	50.6%	88,087	6.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Roanoke	Virginia	112	100	3	51.8%	87,741	6.7	10	2	11	0	1	11
Modesto	California	111	101	6	33.2%	87,708	7.3	7	1	7	0	0	7
Homestead	Florida	111	99	3	46.5%	87,200	6.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Ocala	Florida	118	107	6	38.5%	86,723	7.2	11	1	11	0	0	11
Jamaica	New York	112	100	6	35.5%	86,532	6.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Odessa	Texas	112	103	4	53.0%	84,876	5.7	6	1	6	0	0	6
Mckinney	Texas	106	98	4	44.8%	84,674	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Sugar Land	Texas	105	97	4	50.0%	84,464	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Round Rock	Texas	107	99	4	50.3%	84,274	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Naperville	Illinois	107	97	4	50.7%	84,083	5.8	4	2	5	1	1	5
Montgomery	Alabama	115	105	7	39.9%	83,828	7.1	13	1	13	0	1	13
Worcester	Massachusetts	117	103	4	44.9%	83,404	6.8	9	1	9	0	0	9
Pueblo	Colorado	111	98	4	52.5%	82,998	5.3	7	2	8	0	2	8
Carrollton	Texas	109	98	3	61.4%	82,746	5.0	3	1	3	0	1	3
Lake Worth	Florida	109	99	6	40.0%	82,586	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Green Bay	Wisconsin	112	103	5	45.0%	82,452	6.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Stamford	Connecticut	112	102	4	63.9%	82,315	5.0	6	3	9	0	3	9
Gaithersburg	Maryland	121	106	3	56.1%	81,187	6.0	5	1	5	0	1	5
Flint	Michigan	117	105	4	51.8%	80,511	6.0	7	2	8	1	1	8
Norman	Oklahoma	111	100	2	64.8%	80,382	4.0	4	3	7	0	3	7
Fontana	California	109	98	6	34.2%	80,347	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Overland Park	Kansas	116	104	4	43.7%	80,221	6.3	9	3	11	0	1	11
Fullerton	California	106	97	4	57.5%	80,027	5.0	4	1	5	1	1	5
San Bernardino	California	113	103	5	31.8%	79,444	7.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Vallejo	California	107	98	5	63.4%	78,852	3.8	4	2	5	1	1	5
Lancaster	California	105	96	4	42.7%	78,779	6.0	3	2	4	0	1	4
Idaho Falls	Idaho	107	97	1	72.1%	78,628	4.3	4	2	6	1	2	6
Eugene	Oregon	113	103	7	38.7%	78,490	6.7	6	2	7	0	1	7
Augusta	Georgia	117	107	6	38.3%	78,395	7.3	8	1	8	0	0	8
Tyler	Texas	115	104	4	50.2%	78,363	5.8	9	2	10	0	1	10
Cary	North Carolina	123	108	5	50.4%	78,359	6.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Humble	Texas	108	98	5	46.9%	78,167	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Kalamazoo	Michigan	115	103	5	47.6%	78,087	6.9	7	2	8	0	1	8
Denton	Texas	110	101	6	49.1%	77,691	5.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Rockford	Illinois	114	104	5	42.4%	77,365	6.6	9	2	10	1	1	10
Edinburg	Texas	112	102	4	49.7%	77,342	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Erie	Pennsylvania	116	105	5	42.0%	77,060	7.0	13	2	14	0	1	14
Indio	California	103	94	2	80.0%	76,873	3.0	2	2	4	0	2	4
Clovis	California	106	97	3	63.3%	76,820	4.3	3	2	4	1	1	4
North Las Vegas	Nevada	110	99	6	32.8%	76,639	8.0	7	1	7	0	0	7
Tempe	Arizona	112	103	6	40.3%	76,584	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Pomona	California	107	97	4	48.0%	75,862	5.7	3	2	4	0	1	4
Canton	Ohio	117	105	3	51.5%	75,652	5.7	12	2	13	0	1	13
Lithonia	Georgia	103	95	2	77.9%	75,355	3.5	2	2	3	0	1	3
Flushing	New York	107	96	6	35.0%	75,171	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Chula Vista	California	109	100	6	28.8%	75,075	8.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Beaumont	Texas	114	103	3	51.5%	74,985	5.5	8	2	10	0	2	10
Fort Collins	Colorado	110	101	4	38.2%	74,313	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Brownsville	Texas	109	100	6	36.9%	74,287	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Waco	Texas	112	100	4	46.2%	73,119	6.7	9	1	9	0	0	9
Harrisburg	Pennsylvania	115	106	5	42.9%	72,698	6.4	9	2	10	0	1	10
Mission	Texas	105	95	6	40.0%	72,437	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Renton	Washington	112	100	3	46.8%	72,421	6.2	5	2	6	0	1	6
Beaverton	Oregon	112	102	5	35.9%	72,389	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Merced	California	108	100	3	70.1%	72,209	4.0	3	2	5	0	2	5
Frederick	Maryland	106	96	3	54.5%	71,875	5.8	4	1	4	0	1	4
York	Pennsylvania	115	104	5	39.9%	71,707	7.3	7	1	7	0	0	7
Carlsbad	California	109	96	2	63.0%	71,644	5.3	4	2	6	0	2	6
Boynton Beach	Florida	114	101	6	41.0%	71,461	7.0	6	1	6	0	0	6
Van Nuys	California	105	95	5	40.1%	71,289	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Decatur	Georgia	109	99	5	39.4%	71,262	6.8	5	2	6	0	1	6
Clearwater	Florida	123	109	5	38.8%	71,058	7.2	9	1	9	0	0	9
Pasadena	California	113	103	5	45.0%	70,968	6.7	6	1	6	0	0	6
Killeen	Texas	110	101	4	47.2%	70,822	6.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
La Puente	California	105	96	4	59.6%	70,280	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Clarksville	Tennessee	105	96	6	40.0%	70,279	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Evansville	Indiana	134	120	6	37.9%	70,004	6.9	9	1	9	0	0	9
Palmdale	California	106	97	6	40.0%	69,974	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Santa Clara	California	107	97	3	55.7%	69,905	4.5	4	2	6	1	2	6
Schenectady	New York	113	101	5	43.0%	69,664	6.9	8	1	8	0	1	8
Puyallup	Washington	112	101	3	48.7%	69,558	6.2	5	1	5	0	1	5
Bellevue	Washington	112	101	5	47.5%	69,455	6.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Rio Rancho	New Mexico	102	93	3	71.2%	69,395	4.0	2	2	3	0	1	3
Henrico	Virginia	120	109	5	35.8%	69,060	7.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Hyattsville	Maryland	113	97	5	43.8%	69,004	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
North Hollywood	California	108	98	5	45.0%	68,961	6.0	4	1	5	0	1	5
Lafayette	Louisiana	109	100	5	42.9%	68,795	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Grand Prairie	Texas	106	96	7	36.1%	68,756	6.0	4	3	6	1	2	6
Sioux Falls	South Dakota	115	106	6	37.5%	68,146	6.7	9	1	9	0	0	9
Charlottesville	Virginia	113	100	5	55.2%	67,857	6.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Cypress	Texas	108	101	6	39.6%	67,632	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Longview	Texas	122	109	3	63.8%	67,116	5.2	5	1	5	0	2	5
Visalia	California	108	99	6	43.9%	66,810	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
West Valley City	Utah	106	96	5	50.2%	66,755	5.3	3	2	4	0	1	4
Temecula	California	109	99	5	51.0%	66,271	4.0	3	2	5	0	2	5
Huntington Beach	California	111	99	5	33.1%	66,244	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Appleton	Wisconsin	107	99	3	54.4%	66,237	5.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Oxnard	California	107	98	6	30.0%	66,115	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Olympia	Washington	110	98	6	36.1%	66,006	7.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Topeka	Kansas	117	105	6	40.3%	65,929	7.1	18	1	18	0	0	18
Saint Charles	Missouri	104	95	4	47.0%	65,801	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Abilene	Texas	111	102	4	50.5%	65,728	6.2	6	1	6	0	0	6
Providence	Rhode Island	109	98	6	32.0%	65,530	7.8	8	1	9	0	1	9
Gainesville	Florida	119	107	7	31.2%	65,373	7.9	10	1	10	0	0	10
Charleston	South Carolina	121	110	5	33.1%	65,185	7.5	10	1	10	0	0	10
Springdale	Arkansas	104	96	3	67.6%	65,136	4.5	2	1	2	0	1	2
Salinas	California	106	96	5	34.4%	64,816	7.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Boulder	Colorado	112	102	5	49.2%	64,620	6.3	6	2	7	0	1	7
Bowling Green	Kentucky	108	97	5	55.8%	64,431	5.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Kent	Washington	113	102	4	39.9%	64,095	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
South Bend	Indiana	130	116	5	43.7%	64,088	6.9	10	1	10	0	0	10
West Jordan	Utah	112	103	6	51.6%	63,754	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Norwalk	California	99	91	5	60.0%	63,532	5.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
New Braunfels	Texas	104	96	4	61.6%	63,368	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Alpharetta	Georgia	109	98	6	33.4%	63,181	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Falls Church	Virginia	107	96	5	52.3%	62,892	5.4	5	2	6	0	1	6
Newport News	Virginia	112	99	6	35.5%	62,729	7.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Peoria	Arizona	110	99	6	36.2%	62,340	7.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Hampton	Virginia	114	100	5	45.5%	61,947	7.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Moreno Valley	California	109	99	6	30.0%	61,636	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Bell Gardens	California	99	90	5	60.0%	61,460	5.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Fairfax	Virginia	106	96	5	37.5%	61,440	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Astoria	New York	111	100	5	43.0%	61,355	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Summerville	South Carolina	104	96	5	44.1%	61,277	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Metairie	Louisiana	111	102	5	43.0%	61,225	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Pearland	Texas	104	96	7	44.4%	61,124	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Bothell	Washington	110	98	5	47.6%	61,120	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Hemet	California	105	95	5	47.4%	61,095	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Fargo	North Dakota	108	100	3	49.8%	60,954	6.0	4	1	4	0	1	4
Everett	Washington	112	100	6	36.4%	60,706	7.2	5	1	5	0	1	5
Elk Grove	California	109	96	6	33.7%	60,370	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Orem	Utah	104	96	5	60.0%	60,191	5.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Santa Maria	California	106	97	6	42.0%	60,137	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Cape Coral	Florida	115	104	6	33.1%	59,876	7.7	6	1	6	0	0	6
Bend	Oregon	109	99	4	49.0%	59,852	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Costa Mesa	California	104	95	3	52.2%	59,396	5.5	2	2	3	0	1	3
Ontario	California	109	98	8	33.5%	59,107	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Las Cruces	New Mexico	120	107	6	39.6%	59,031	7.3	7	1	7	0	0	7
Bloomington	Indiana	107	97	5	43.9%	58,700	6.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Oceanside	California	106	96	5	29.2%	58,460	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Orange	California	111	100	5	40.3%	58,388	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Elkhart	Indiana	109	101	3	58.3%	57,976	5.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Racine	Wisconsin	111	103	3	46.0%	57,933	6.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Jackson	Mississippi	113	99	6	33.9%	57,820	7.4	11	1	11	0	0	11
Lansing	Michigan	118	107	6	35.1%	57,674	7.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
South Gate	California	99	90	5	60.0%	57,062	5.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Trenton	New Jersey	116	104	5	27.4%	56,985	8.2	11	1	11	0	0	11
San Angelo	Texas	108	99	5	51.4%	56,922	6.0	4	1	4	0	1	4
Elgin	Illinois	107	97	5	46.5%	56,835	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Mcallen	Texas	109	100	6	40.0%	56,635	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Muncie	Indiana	110	100	2	60.9%	56,471	5.2	5	2	6	1	1	6
San Mateo	California	106	97	7	39.6%	56,363	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Rockville	Maryland	109	101	5	38.9%	56,268	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Hartford	Connecticut	105	97	5	45.5%	56,105	7.3	6	2	7	0	1	7
Cedar Rapids	Iowa	114	101	6	40.0%	55,781	6.7	6	1	6	0	0	6
Concord	California	107	98	4	42.8%	55,762	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Cumming	Georgia	106	97	8	34.4%	55,657	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Joliet	Illinois	108	97	5	43.2%	55,647	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
College Station	Texas	107	98	5	45.1%	55,527	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Wichita Falls	Texas	115	105	3	55.9%	55,204	5.7	7	1	7	0	2	7
Auburn	Washington	112	101	6	48.8%	55,125	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Surprise	Arizona	106	98	6	40.6%	55,005	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Nampa	Idaho	109	99	6	47.1%	54,560	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Inglewood	California	124	112	5	40.7%	54,417	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Syracuse	New York	119	107	7	24.0%	54,375	8.5	15	1	15	0	0	15
Macon	Georgia	118	108	5	33.2%	54,357	7.6	9	1	9	0	0	9
Midlothian	Virginia	103	94	5	56.1%	54,252	5.3	3	1	3	0	1	3
Keller	Texas	108	99	5	46.6%	54,191	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Tuscaloosa	Alabama	111	102	5	44.2%	54,153	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Saginaw	Michigan	118	107	6	41.5%	54,042	6.9	7	1	7	0	0	7
Myrtle Beach	South Carolina	108	99	3	37.1%	54,029	7.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Manassas	Virginia	110	101	5	35.5%	54,008	7.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Kennewick	Washington	106	96	4	54.2%	53,587	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Fort Mill	South Carolina	106	98	3	56.1%	53,280	5.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Franklin	Tennessee	105	96	5	50.0%	53,237	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Melbourne	Florida	117	107	5	34.2%	53,195	7.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Longmont	Colorado	108	98	7	40.6%	53,146	6.7	3	2	4	0	0	4
Torrance	California	113	103	6	30.0%	53,038	8.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
San Leandro	California	108	97	5	47.4%	52,687	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Sunnyvale	California	107	98	7	34.4%	52,526	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Athens	Georgia	115	106	5	42.1%	52,452	7.2	6	1	6	0	0	6
Albany	New York	117	102	7	34.7%	52,415	7.7	11	1	11	0	0	11
Yonkers	New York	109	99	7	28.8%	52,042	8.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Panama City	Florida	107	99	6	41.0%	51,763	6.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
El Cajon	California	109	97	7	30.0%	51,739	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Frisco	Texas	105	95	8	30.0%	51,734	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Lehigh Acres	Florida	110	101	6	44.2%	51,671	6.5	6	1	6	0	0	6
Saint Augustine	Florida	112	104	5	39.4%	51,633	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Bellingham	Washington	106	96	5	40.4%	51,145	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Lynnwood	Washington	104	95	6	47.2%	51,145	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Port Saint Lucie	Florida	116	104	9	25.1%	51,028	8.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Lake Charles	Louisiana	112	102	8	39.0%	51,004	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Sparks	Nevada	108	98	6	42.7%	50,960	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Lakewood	New Jersey	98	91	6	50.0%	50,382	6.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Tracy	California	106	96	5	42.5%	49,765	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Napa	California	101	92	5	51.5%	49,742	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Olathe	Kansas	107	98	9	34.4%	49,700	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Edison	New Jersey	107	97	3	49.2%	49,646	6.3	3	2	4	0	1	4
Hesperia	California	105	94	5	47.8%	49,605	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Rialto	California	106	97	5	46.3%	49,380	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Lowell	Massachusetts	108	100	4	44.3%	49,373	6.5	4	1	5	0	1	5
Cambridge	Massachusetts	109	100	6	42.5%	49,238	6.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Berkeley	California	110	99	6	38.5%	48,971	7.2	9	1	9	0	0	9
Spartanburg	South Carolina	114	105	5	43.7%	48,925	6.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Anderson	South Carolina	107	99	5	49.6%	48,776	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Lewisville	Texas	109	100	6	41.0%	48,664	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Escondido	California	104	94	6	26.8%	48,215	8.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Youngstown	Ohio	116	105	6	30.6%	48,083	7.9	12	1	12	0	0	12
Florissant	Missouri	108	99	5	44.2%	47,895	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Jupiter	Florida	107	97	4	48.5%	47,831	6.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Perris	California	106	96	6	40.4%	47,406	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Stone Mountain	Georgia	108	98	7	36.9%	47,324	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
El Monte	California	103	94	5	50.4%	47,185	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Asheville	North Carolina	112	100	6	35.7%	47,109	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Broomfield	Colorado	105	96	6	44.9%	47,052	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Vista	California	106	97	5	39.2%	46,983	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Boston	Massachusetts	115	105	8	30.8%	46,756	7.8	14	1	14	0	0	14
Miami Beach	Florida	113	99	5	40.4%	46,706	7.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Clermont	Florida	108	96	5	46.4%	46,538	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Waterbury	Connecticut	109	101	6	42.7%	46,396	6.8	6	3	8	0	2	8
Coral Springs	Florida	104	96	5	47.7%	46,391	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Meridian	Idaho	107	99	5	44.3%	46,191	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Sandy	Utah	111	103	5	41.7%	46,038	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Johnson City	Tennessee	108	99	5	48.1%	45,919	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Greeley	Colorado	104	95	7	40.0%	45,626	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Vacaville	California	101	92	5	42.9%	45,203	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Victorville	California	105	95	6	33.1%	45,167	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Waukesha	Wisconsin	117	107	3	47.1%	45,163	6.0	3	1	3	0	1	3
Yuma	Arizona	107	99	5	30.0%	44,279	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Allentown	Pennsylvania	111	101	6	26.0%	44,157	8.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Bridgeport	Connecticut	112	102	8	30.1%	44,093	7.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Plainfield	Illinois	106	98	6	44.7%	44,084	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Santa Barbara	California	111	99	5	32.3%	43,898	7.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Mesquite	Texas	106	98	8	30.0%	43,894	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Mission Viejo	California	105	95	6	44.5%	43,780	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Belleville	Illinois	106	97	3	46.8%	43,618	6.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Kenosha	Wisconsin	112	104	7	38.2%	43,176	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Broken Arrow	Oklahoma	106	97	7	33.1%	43,159	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Herndon	Virginia	104	94	6	46.2%	43,140	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Dearborn	Michigan	110	99	6	45.3%	43,079	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ventura	California	104	95	4	37.1%	43,065	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Bryan	Texas	114	105	4	44.5%	42,822	6.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Duluth	Minnesota	115	106	8	36.4%	42,594	7.0	11	2	12	0	1	12
Deltona	Florida	102	93	5	45.3%	42,569	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Baytown	Texas	108	98	9	36.1%	42,532	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Independence	Missouri	112	103	9	34.1%	42,271	7.3	8	1	8	0	0	8
Bethlehem	Pennsylvania	109	99	6	33.7%	42,189	7.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ann Arbor	Michigan	114	103	8	25.1%	41,858	8.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Provo	Utah	108	99	7	35.9%	41,819	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Livonia	Michigan	109	98	4	44.2%	41,806	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Redding	California	110	99	5	36.9%	41,757	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Compton	California	106	98	8	30.0%	41,663	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Lees Summit	Missouri	110	98	7	40.4%	41,271	7.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Missoula	Montana	111	102	5	42.4%	41,214	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Yakima	Washington	109	100	9	31.7%	41,212	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Lawrence	Kansas	111	102	7	40.7%	41,130	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Warren	Michigan	115	103	6	30.4%	41,063	8.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Portsmouth	Virginia	112	102	5	43.0%	40,964	6.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Daly City	California	103	94	7	35.7%	40,809	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Downey	California	100	91	5	36.1%	40,746	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Rock Hill	South Carolina	108	99	8	35.0%	40,687	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Rapid City	South Dakota	104	96	7	42.0%	40,657	6.0	3	2	4	0	1	4
Vero Beach	Florida	114	101	8	35.1%	40,414	7.5	6	1	6	0	0	6
Arvada	Colorado	110	101	7	30.1%	40,144	7.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Federal Way	Washington	105	95	6	40.0%	40,057	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Douglasville	Georgia	109	99	7	36.0%	39,688	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Daytona Beach	Florida	108	98	6	38.4%	39,638	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Riverview	Florida	104	96	8	35.5%	39,570	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Richardson	Texas	109	101	7	34.5%	39,550	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Winter Haven	Florida	107	97	6	37.0%	39,544	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Quincy	Massachusetts	107	96	6	41.9%	39,465	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Spring Hill	Florida	110	99	7	31.2%	39,185	7.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Missouri City	Texas	109	99	7	36.9%	39,138	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Palo Alto	California	107	96	6	40.3%	38,966	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Simi Valley	California	101	92	6	30.0%	38,614	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Madera	California	105	94	6	37.4%	38,517	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Livermore	California	105	95	5	40.0%	38,501	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Santa Fe	New Mexico	109	99	7	30.0%	38,379	7.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Terre Haute	Indiana	112	103	5	40.3%	38,300	6.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Brockton	Massachusetts	103	95	6	39.8%	37,964	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Valdosta	Georgia	112	103	7	39.8%	37,772	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Elmhurst	New York	100	91	7	40.0%	37,587	7.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Palm Bay	Florida	107	100	7	33.7%	37,557	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Laurel	Maryland	109	99	5	33.3%	37,504	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Allen	Texas	102	94	6	33.7%	37,449	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Chino	California	105	96	5	39.6%	37,400	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Medford	Oregon	106	98	7	40.0%	37,301	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Largo	Florida	113	105	6	34.6%	37,269	7.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Waukegan	Illinois	104	96	7	38.2%	37,262	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Manchester	New Hampshire	113	101	8	32.1%	37,257	8.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Grand Junction	Colorado	108	97	7	35.3%	37,187	7.5	6	1	6	0	0	6
Paterson	New Jersey	112	99	5	25.4%	37,067	8.4	9	1	9	0	0	9
Englewood	Colorado	109	100	7	33.0%	36,784	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ballwin	Missouri	105	95	6	38.1%	36,088	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Ypsilanti	Michigan	118	108	7	33.6%	35,949	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Hillsboro	Oregon	106	95	9	34.7%	35,738	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
New Haven	Connecticut	106	98	7	27.4%	35,642	7.8	5	2	6	0	1	6
Sterling Heights	Michigan	112	104	9	26.7%	35,395	8.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Gastonia	North Carolina	107	97	6	33.0%	35,348	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Kennesaw	Georgia	108	97	8	35.6%	35,321	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Westerville	Ohio	107	98	6	37.1%	35,290	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Mcdonough	Georgia	107	98	9	34.6%	35,067	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Milton	Florida	108	99	8	37.0%	35,038	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Roswell	Georgia	108	97	9	34.7%	34,575	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Apopka	Florida	105	95	6	35.2%	34,395	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Woodstock	Georgia	104	96	8	33.8%	34,371	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Redwood City	California	105	95	7	30.0%	34,339	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Santa Cruz	California	106	95	8	33.0%	34,304	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Elizabeth	New Jersey	106	97	7	34.1%	34,264	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
O Fallon	Missouri	105	95	8	35.4%	34,178	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Newnan	Georgia	105	96	6	36.3%	33,889	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Lynchburg	Virginia	107	97	6	33.1%	33,852	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ashburn	Virginia	104	95	6	30.0%	33,692	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Chico	California	105	96	6	30.0%	33,605	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Clinton Township	Michigan	111	102	9	33.4%	33,541	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Antioch	California	107	99	7	30.0%	33,216	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
New Port Richey	Florida	111	101	7	27.5%	33,185	8.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Menifee	California	108	98	6	30.0%	33,159	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Lynn	Massachusetts	107	97	6	35.3%	33,026	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Fort Pierce	Florida	119	105	6	34.2%	32,763	7.5	8	1	8	0	0	8
Holland	Michigan	107	98	8	34.8%	32,711	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Chapel Hill	North Carolina	110	99	6	33.3%	32,615	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
West Chester	Pennsylvania	103	94	6	30.0%	32,609	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
High Point	North Carolina	110	99	6	26.2%	32,051	8.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Davenport	Iowa	109	100	7	30.5%	31,988	8.2	6	1	6	0	0	6
Pacoima	California	100	90	6	30.0%	31,740	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Gulfport	Mississippi	111	99	8	33.4%	31,594	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Champaign	Illinois	110	98	7	33.2%	31,428	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
New Bedford	Massachusetts	114	104	8	33.0%	31,249	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
San Marcos	California	107	98	9	30.0%	30,144	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Parker	Colorado	108	100	9	30.0%	30,085	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Annapolis	Maryland	110	101	5	31.5%	29,909	8.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Acworth	Georgia	109	99	9	30.0%	29,905	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Delray Beach	Florida	109	100	8	25.1%	29,882	8.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Buford	Georgia	102	94	7	30.0%	29,731	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Burbank	California	109	100	6	27.2%	29,337	8.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Hawthorne	California	101	90	7	30.0%	29,051	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Sylmar	California	100	94	6	30.0%	28,946	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Pittsburg	California	98	90	5	30.0%	28,824	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Bowie	Maryland	111	100	6	28.1%	28,745	8.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Covington	Georgia	107	98	8	30.0%	27,806	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Santa Monica	California	105	96	6	27.6%	26,041	8.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
West Covina	California	111	100	12	23.7%	25,950	8.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Hagerstown	Maryland	109	100	9	25.2%	24,677	6.7	3	1	3	0	1	3
Toms River	New Jersey	109	99	9	20.0%	24,572	9.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Ridgewood	New York	99	91	7	20.0%	21,343	9.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Morgantown	West Virginia	105	96	9	22.3%	21,273	8.7	3	1	3	0	0	3

California

City	Competition	Business intelligence metrics	RAW Data (Google Search Results across all ZIPs)
Los Angeles	147	126	5	39.5%	969,853	7.0	62	1	62	0	0	61
San Diego	134	116	4	41.5%	559,610	7.1	36	2	38	0	2	38
San Jose	129	116	5	41.4%	434,264	6.5	28	3	33	4	5	33
San Francisco	121	106	4	47.9%	416,891	6.9	28	3	30	1	2	30
Sacramento	134	115	5	40.4%	325,356	6.9	28	1	28	0	0	28
Fresno	120	105	5	40.6%	244,651	6.9	18	1	18	0	1	18
Bakersfield	112	102	4	42.6%	238,445	6.5	11	1	11	0	0	11
Whittier	108	98	1	83.7%	164,265	2.7	6	3	13	2	7	13
Oakland	115	102	5	39.2%	161,508	6.7	14	2	15	0	1	15
Riverside	113	102	5	39.1%	144,560	7.0	7	1	7	0	0	7
Long Beach	120	109	5	29.2%	139,819	8.0	12	1	12	0	0	12
Stockton	122	108	4	37.3%	139,562	7.2	12	1	12	0	0	12
Anaheim	114	102	5	33.7%	124,068	7.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Corona	111	98	4	48.1%	123,643	6.6	5	2	6	0	1	6
Santa Ana	110	99	5	33.9%	121,219	7.5	6	1	6	0	0	6
Roseville	106	95	1	78.6%	109,883	3.3	3	1	5	0	2	5
Irvine	112	101	5	39.9%	106,705	7.2	9	1	9	0	0	9
Fairfield	102	93	1	93.4%	106,516	1.5	2	3	6	1	4	6
Murrieta	106	96	2	80.3%	106,196	3.0	2	2	3	0	1	3
Santa Rosa	112	100	4	43.8%	94,570	6.7	6	1	6	0	0	6
Fremont	107	98	5	39.9%	92,980	6.5	4	2	5	0	1	5
Hayward	108	98	4	47.9%	92,060	6.5	4	2	5	0	1	5
Garden Grove	110	97	3	51.8%	91,091	5.8	5	2	7	0	2	7
Rancho Cucamonga	109	98	4	50.2%	88,735	5.5	4	1	5	0	1	5
Modesto	111	101	6	33.2%	87,708	7.3	7	1	7	0	0	7
Fontana	109	98	6	34.2%	80,347	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Fullerton	106	97	4	57.5%	80,027	5.0	4	1	5	1	1	5
San Bernardino	113	103	5	31.8%	79,444	7.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Vallejo	107	98	5	63.4%	78,852	3.8	4	2	5	1	1	5
Lancaster	105	96	4	42.7%	78,779	6.0	3	2	4	0	1	4
Indio	103	94	2	80.0%	76,873	3.0	2	2	4	0	2	4
Clovis	106	97	3	63.3%	76,820	4.3	3	2	4	1	1	4
Pomona	107	97	4	48.0%	75,862	5.7	3	2	4	0	1	4
Chula Vista	109	100	6	28.8%	75,075	8.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Merced	108	100	3	70.1%	72,209	4.0	3	2	5	0	2	5
Carlsbad	109	96	2	63.0%	71,644	5.3	4	2	6	0	2	6
Van Nuys	105	95	5	40.1%	71,289	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Pasadena	113	103	5	45.0%	70,968	6.7	6	1	6	0	0	6
La Puente	105	96	4	59.6%	70,280	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Palmdale	106	97	6	40.0%	69,974	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Santa Clara	107	97	3	55.7%	69,905	4.5	4	2	6	1	2	6
North Hollywood	108	98	5	45.0%	68,961	6.0	4	1	5	0	1	5
Visalia	108	99	6	43.9%	66,810	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Temecula	109	99	5	51.0%	66,271	4.0	3	2	5	0	2	5
Huntington Beach	111	99	5	33.1%	66,244	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Oxnard	107	98	6	30.0%	66,115	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Salinas	106	96	5	34.4%	64,816	7.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Norwalk	99	91	5	60.0%	63,532	5.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Moreno Valley	109	99	6	30.0%	61,636	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Bell Gardens	99	90	5	60.0%	61,460	5.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Hemet	105	95	5	47.4%	61,095	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Elk Grove	109	96	6	33.7%	60,370	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Santa Maria	106	97	6	42.0%	60,137	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Costa Mesa	104	95	3	52.2%	59,396	5.5	2	2	3	0	1	3
Ontario	109	98	8	33.5%	59,107	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Oceanside	106	96	5	29.2%	58,460	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Orange	111	100	5	40.3%	58,388	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
South Gate	99	90	5	60.0%	57,062	5.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
San Mateo	106	97	7	39.6%	56,363	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Concord	107	98	4	42.8%	55,762	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Inglewood	124	112	5	40.7%	54,417	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Torrance	113	103	6	30.0%	53,038	8.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
San Leandro	108	97	5	47.4%	52,687	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Sunnyvale	107	98	7	34.4%	52,526	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
El Cajon	109	97	7	30.0%	51,739	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Tracy	106	96	5	42.5%	49,765	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Napa	101	92	5	51.5%	49,742	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Hesperia	105	94	5	47.8%	49,605	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Rialto	106	97	5	46.3%	49,380	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Berkeley	110	99	6	38.5%	48,971	7.2	9	1	9	0	0	9
Escondido	104	94	6	26.8%	48,215	8.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Perris	106	96	6	40.4%	47,406	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
El Monte	103	94	5	50.4%	47,185	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Vista	106	97	5	39.2%	46,983	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Vacaville	101	92	5	42.9%	45,203	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Victorville	105	95	6	33.1%	45,167	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Santa Barbara	111	99	5	32.3%	43,898	7.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Mission Viejo	105	95	6	44.5%	43,780	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Ventura	104	95	4	37.1%	43,065	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Redding	110	99	5	36.9%	41,757	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Compton	106	98	8	30.0%	41,663	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Daly City	103	94	7	35.7%	40,809	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Downey	100	91	5	36.1%	40,746	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Palo Alto	107	96	6	40.3%	38,966	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Simi Valley	101	92	6	30.0%	38,614	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Madera	105	94	6	37.4%	38,517	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Livermore	105	95	5	40.0%	38,501	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Chino	105	96	5	39.6%	37,400	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Redwood City	105	95	7	30.0%	34,339	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Santa Cruz	106	95	8	33.0%	34,304	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Chico	105	96	6	30.0%	33,605	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Antioch	107	99	7	30.0%	33,216	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Menifee	108	98	6	30.0%	33,159	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Pacoima	100	90	6	30.0%	31,740	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
San Marcos	107	98	9	30.0%	30,144	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Burbank	109	100	6	27.2%	29,337	8.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Hawthorne	101	90	7	30.0%	29,051	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Sylmar	100	94	6	30.0%	28,946	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Pittsburg	98	90	5	30.0%	28,824	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Santa Monica	105	96	6	27.6%	26,041	8.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
West Covina	111	100	12	23.7%	25,950	8.7	3	1	3	0	0	3

Houston

ZIP	farmers.com	allstate.com	nationwide.com	geico.com	esurance.com	libertymutual.com
77088	8	4	5	6	7	9
77047	8	4	5	6	7	9
77037	6	4	5	7	8	9
77098	7	4	5	6	8	9
77027	7	4	5	6	8	9
77068	7	1	5	6	8	9
77078	8	4	5	7	6	9
77086	7	4	5	6	8	9
77035	7	4	5	6	8	9
77008	7	4	5	6	8	9
77004	7	1	5	6	8	9
77028	7	4	5	6	8	9
77059	7	2	5	6	8	9
77039	7	4	5	6	8	9
77019	7	4	5	6	8	9
77075	4	1	2	3	5	6
77077	7	4	5	6	8	9
77079	7	4	5	6	8	9
77099	7	4	5	6	8	9
77024	7	4	5	6	8	9
77095	2	4	5	7	8	9
77048	7	4	5	6	8	9
77044	6	4	5	7	8	9
77015	6	4	5	8	7	9
77017	4	1	2	3	5	6
77057	7	4	5	6	8	9
77055	2	4	5	6	8	9
77006	7	4	5	6	8	9
77026	3	1	2	4	5	6
77046	7	4	5	6	8	9
77066	6	2	5	7	8	9
77023	6	4	5	8	7	9
77094	7	4	5	6	8	9
77084	7	4	5	6	8	9
77013	7	4	5	6	8	9
77063	4	1	2	3	5	6
77053	6	4	5	7	8	9
77022	8	4	5	6	7	9
77072	8	4	5	6	7	9
77049	6	4	5	7	8	9
77045	7	4	5	6	8	9
77010	6	1	5	8	7	9
77018	7	4	5	6	8	9
77041	6	3	5	7	8	9
77009	3	1	2	4	5	6
77089	1	2	5	6	8	9
77032	6	4	5	7	8	9
77036	6	4	5	8	7	9
77085	6	4	5	8	7	9
77054	7	4	5	6	8	9
77058	8	4	5	6	7	9
77014	7	4	5	6	8	9
77067	3	1	2	4	5	6
77005	7	4	5	6	8	9
77076	4	1	2	3	5	6
77070	7	4	5	6	8	9
77060	8	4	5	6	7	9
77080	3	4	5	8	6	9
77050	4	1	2	5	3	6
77091	8	4	5	6	7	9
77071	5	1	2	3	4	6
77061	7	4	5	6	8	9
77020	7	4	5	8	6	9
77081	6	4	5	7	8	9
77030	8	4	5	6	7	9
77040	6	4	5	7	8	9
77090	8	1	5	6	7	9
77031	3	1	2	5	4	6
77051	7	4	5	6	8	9
77011	7	4	5	6	8	9
77042	7	4	5	6	8	9
77062	3	4	5	8	6	9
77082	4	1	2	3	5	6
77093	7	4	5	6	8	9
77073	8	4	5	7	6	9
77033	8	4	5	7	6	9
77043	6	4	5	7	8	9
77074	8	4	5	7	6	9
77064	7	4	5	6	8	9
77012	8	4	5	6	7	9
77002	8	4	5	6	7	9
77092	7	4	5	8	6	9
77069	6	4	5	8	7	9
77021	5	1	2	3	4	6
77083	7	4	5	8	6	9
77029	7	4	5	8	6	9
77034	8	1	5	6	7	9
77087	5	1	2	4	3	6
77003	8	2	5	7	6	9
77038	7	4	5	8	6	9
77007	5	1	2	4	3	6
77016	7	4	5	8	6	9
77065	7	4	5	8	6	9
77096	6	4	5	8	7	9
77025	4	1	2	3	5	7
77056	6	4	5	8	7	9

Local Competitors

RAW Rankings

Turn This Data Into an Unfair Advantage for Farmers

Business Intelligence Powered by Local Data

With 100% coverage in the US (32,654 zip-codes) and reporting at the city, state, and national level, you are now equipped to act on relevant business insights instead of average, interpolated, extrapolated, sampled, estimated, and other forms of unreliable data.

Market size
Revenue forecasts
Better business goals

Local, Regional, and National Competitive Landscape

Sales happen locally. In real zip-codes and neighborhoods, not in "states" or in "regions". To help you win local markets and discover opportunities that others miss, we monitor ALL your 8,137 competitors, from EVERY zip-code in USA, no matter how big or small they are.

Benchmark against ANY competitor
Discover trends & emerging players
Identify threats & opportunities

Custom Marketing Plans & Smarter Budgeting

Proprietary population-based metrics such as Visibility or Reach will help you spot business opportunities instantly. Maximize ROI by tailoring your strategy to local target markets, prioritizing and mobilizing resources where they are going to make the most impact.

A/B testing for success strategies
PPC intelligence & lower Google Ads spend
Track progress & organic intelligence

Market Segmentation & Demographic Data-Enrichment

A complete demographic profile of your market, with different levels of granularity (zip-code, city, region, etc.), allows for hyper-personalized communication and marketing campaigns. Monitor competitors, listen to communities and make your business stand out and be a part of the future.

Blend into local communities
Stimulate "in-house" competition
Improve company morale

Our Customers Love This Data, as Will You

Having a tool like this has been a gamechanger!

Knowing exactly where we rank and where the opportunities lie has helped inform action and growth.

Highly recommend SEOlium!

Alex P.

PM, WriteMaps, NZ

As a serious, enterprise-level ecom SEO, I have used EVERY rank tracking tool there is. Sadly, they are mostly all the same, and very unreliable. SEOlium is unique and powerful, and provides truly actionable intelligence, not the same old features you find everywhere. SEOlium is a must-have tool if you’re a serious SEO. Period.

Marty Marion

CEO, Master Positioning, LLC

SEOlium is more than just your average rank tracking tool. The owner goes out of his way to bring features not easily found in the market.
In addition to your standard rank tracking function, you can enjoy its market share and Bulk Import From Google Search Console feature.

Steven Kang

SEO Signals Lab

SEOlium opened my eyes to what is possible.

I now have a clearer picture and they guided me through what I needed to do.

The results have been amazing. Thank you guys.

Adrian Teasdale

CEO, Competitor Monitor, UK

Purchase Options, 30 Days Money Back Guarantee

One-Time Payment

$1,000

Farmers Data (32,654 zip-codes)

1 keyword (insurance company near me)

National/State Overview

City Overview (50 cities)

National/Regional Competitors

Local Competitors

Track Progress (Monthly Reports)

Organic Intelligence

Google Ads Intelligence

Brand Mention Alerts

SERP Domain Emails

Custom Data Filtering & Processing

RAW SQL Database Export

Custom Dashboards

Account Manager

Rising Star

$5,000/mo

Farmers Data (32,654 zip-codes)

10 Keywords (to be agreed)

National/State Overview

City Overview (1,500 Cities)

National/Regional Competitors

Local Competitors

Track Progress (Monthly Reports)

Organic Intelligence

Google Ads Intelligence

5 Brand Mention Alerts

SERP Domain Emails

Custom Data Filtering & Processing

RAW SQL Database Export

Custom Dashboards

Account Manager

Market Dominator

$10,000/mo

Farmers Data (32,654 zip-codes)

25 Keywords (to be agreed)

National/State/County Overview

City Overview (25,000+ Cities)

National/Regional Competitors

Local Competitors

Track Progress (Monthly Reports)

Organic Intelligence

Google Ads Intelligence

10 Brand Mention Alerts

SERP Domain Emails

Custom Data Filtering & Processing

RAW SQL Database Export

Custom Dashboards

Account Manager

Farmers Market Research15 KPIs for Every City & State Delivered Monthly