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

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

Who Is This For
Just a Few Benefits

Esurance Managers
Founders, Partners, Business Development & Marketing Directors
Esurance 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 Esurance Report, December 2025 (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	Esurance Rank	Visibility	Reach	Average Position	Cities	ZIPs	Pages	Rankings	Top 1	Top 3	Top 10
USA	10,953	8,137	4	43.7%	141,209,874	6.6	27,379	32,654	3	32,660	3	1,384	32,660
California	870	609	4	43.1%	16,881,016	6.6	1,166	1,740	1	1,741	0	60	1,741
Texas	846	595	5	42.3%	11,788,757	6.8	1,360	1,917	1	1,920	2	54	1,920
Florida	768	578	4	45.6%	9,383,142	6.5	446	975	1	975	0	47	975
New York	791	600	4	44.8%	8,786,225	6.6	1,491	1,756	1	1,756	0	70	1,756
Illinois	670	490	4	45.2%	5,789,329	6.5	1,247	1,382	1	1,382	0	68	1,382
Pennsylvania	757	591	4	44.7%	5,718,374	6.6	1,604	1,781	1	1,781	0	84	1,781
Ohio	670	548	5	42.5%	4,944,638	6.8	976	1,188	1	1,188	0	36	1,188
North Carolina	506	406	3	48.3%	4,900,350	6.2	683	802	1	802	0	53	802
Michigan	656	528	3	47.4%	4,723,586	6.2	833	976	1	976	0	57	976
Georgia	409	319	4	41.6%	4,281,006	6.8	574	726	1	726	0	19	726
New Jersey	436	328	4	44.7%	3,969,864	6.6	537	593	1	593	0	18	593
Virginia	406	322	4	46.2%	3,883,607	6.4	723	891	1	891	0	43	891
Arizona	269	218	4	47.4%	3,293,815	6.2	247	396	1	396	0	24	396
Washington	337	274	4	44.7%	3,257,500	6.6	451	587	1	587	0	37	587
Indiana	472	373	4	44.0%	2,922,815	6.6	659	770	1	770	0	30	770
Tennessee	377	305	5	43.1%	2,862,143	6.6	514	622	1	622	0	28	622
Wisconsin	481	384	4	44.2%	2,552,875	6.5	694	769	1	769	0	39	769
Minnesota	530	418	4	44.9%	2,482,136	6.6	777	878	1	878	0	37	878
Maryland	338	254	4	41.1%	2,469,499	6.8	392	463	1	463	0	9	463
Missouri	427	337	4	39.4%	2,397,339	7.0	887	1,017	1	1,017	0	31	1,017
Colorado	296	242	4	42.9%	2,372,153	6.7	381	514	1	514	0	12	514
Alabama	320	261	3	46.2%	2,247,378	6.4	522	637	2	638	1	33	638
South Carolina	278	223	4	44.1%	2,183,556	6.5	347	422	1	422	0	28	422
Louisiana	306	237	3	46.8%	2,183,441	6.3	431	510	1	510	0	29	510
Massachusetts	517	422	6	30.5%	2,082,907	7.9	461	534	1	534	0	4	534
Kentucky	354	287	4	43.9%	1,950,690	6.7	698	758	1	758	0	41	758
Oregon	271	224	4	44.3%	1,807,134	6.5	355	414	1	414	0	14	414
Oklahoma	322	248	5	43.0%	1,686,624	6.7	557	646	1	646	0	15	646
Connecticut	284	228	4	43.2%	1,547,747	6.7	234	279	1	279	0	15	279
Nevada	176	146	4	49.1%	1,434,162	6.1	92	168	1	168	0	11	168
Utah	245	207	4	45.7%	1,391,295	6.4	246	284	1	284	0	18	284
Mississippi	250	193	4	43.5%	1,299,001	6.6	384	418	1	418	0	14	418
Kansas	341	261	4	44.5%	1,293,514	6.5	616	692	1	692	0	37	692
Iowa	486	357	5	41.2%	1,291,125	6.7	890	933	1	933	0	31	933
Arkansas	261	209	4	42.7%	1,275,902	6.6	553	587	1	587	0	24	587
West Virginia	277	224	3	46.6%	852,849	6.3	684	704	1	704	0	56	704
New Mexico	204	159	4	39.6%	827,659	6.7	327	361	1	361	0	14	361
Nebraska	308	241	5	42.4%	807,185	6.7	524	581	2	582	0	20	582
Idaho	199	170	5	40.6%	684,755	6.7	251	273	1	273	0	12	273
Hawaii	152	129	4	39.7%	564,841	6.9	82	93	1	93	0	0	93
New Hampshire	226	197	5	41.8%	561,401	6.7	238	248	1	248	0	13	248
Maine	240	198	5	37.6%	500,830	7.1	421	425	1	425	0	16	425
Delaware	159	137	4	47.5%	450,962	6.2	52	66	1	66	0	4	66
Montana	229	186	5	42.7%	445,057	6.9	348	361	1	361	0	8	361
Rhode Island	157	139	5	36.4%	384,978	7.4	64	77	1	77	0	1	77
South Dakota	217	174	5	41.4%	357,552	6.8	359	370	1	370	0	16	370
Alaska	155	134	4	45.8%	338,011	5.4	218	235	1	235	0	29	235
North Dakota	206	168	6	43.9%	330,145	6.7	367	381	1	381	0	10	381
Vermont	197	170	5	39.0%	244,047	7.0	250	254	1	254	0	9	254
Wyoming	152	130	5	37.1%	216,213	6.9	164	171	1	171	0	6	171

City Overview

City	State	Competition	Business Intelligence Metrics	RAW Data (Google Search Results across all ZIPs)
Houston	Texas	173	138	5	40.2%	1,282,605	6.9	96	1	96	0	3	96
Chicago	Illinois	152	133	5	44.4%	1,199,608	6.8	56	1	56	0	0	56
Los Angeles	California	147	126	4	47.6%	1,170,107	6.2	62	1	62	0	3	62
Brooklyn	New York	137	115	4	43.8%	1,137,989	6.6	37	1	37	0	0	37
Miami	Florida	160	123	4	46.7%	877,328	6.4	55	1	55	0	1	55
San Antonio	Texas	150	126	5	41.7%	741,610	6.4	59	1	59	0	4	59
Las Vegas	Nevada	132	111	4	47.5%	734,260	6.3	43	1	43	0	1	43
New York City	New York	128	111	4	44.6%	722,599	6.4	47	1	47	0	2	47
Phoenix	Arizona	146	126	3	45.7%	663,635	6.4	42	1	42	0	2	42
Bronx	New York	118	103	4	45.4%	655,049	6.3	25	1	25	0	0	25
Philadelphia	Pennsylvania	138	117	4	40.4%	636,087	7.2	47	1	47	0	1	47
Dallas	Texas	149	126	4	44.1%	614,041	6.5	48	1	48	0	3	48
San Diego	California	134	116	5	40.0%	539,290	7.0	36	1	36	0	0	36
Minneapolis	Minnesota	134	119	5	49.1%	534,113	6.0	51	1	51	0	6	51
Denver	Colorado	136	120	4	46.2%	502,576	6.3	38	1	38	0	1	38
Orlando	Florida	133	115	4	48.6%	484,215	6.3	32	1	32	0	2	32
San Jose	California	129	116	4	44.8%	470,188	6.5	28	1	28	0	2	28
Charlotte	North Carolina	125	111	3	48.9%	443,075	6.0	24	1	24	0	2	24
Seattle	Washington	142	127	4	45.7%	436,538	6.5	35	1	35	0	2	35
Tucson	Arizona	126	106	3	47.6%	430,927	6.1	32	1	32	0	3	32
Austin	Texas	138	123	5	37.7%	410,287	7.1	44	1	44	0	0	44
San Francisco	California	121	106	5	46.4%	404,144	6.5	28	1	28	0	2	28
Portland	Oregon	130	112	4	43.3%	398,447	6.5	33	1	33	0	1	33
Fort Lauderdale	Florida	133	115	4	47.2%	392,534	6.3	27	1	27	0	3	27
Saint Louis	Missouri	139	119	3	42.7%	392,018	6.6	45	1	45	0	2	45
Atlanta	Georgia	141	121	5	39.2%	387,977	7.1	39	1	39	0	0	39
El Paso	Texas	122	110	4	48.2%	380,192	6.3	24	1	24	0	0	24
Fort Worth	Texas	136	119	4	40.9%	373,061	6.8	32	1	32	0	0	32
Tampa	Florida	131	110	3	46.0%	365,011	6.4	27	1	27	0	1	27
Jacksonville	Florida	141	122	4	42.0%	364,166	6.6	31	1	31	0	1	31
Saint Paul	Minnesota	138	121	4	44.8%	358,048	6.5	30	1	30	0	2	30
Milwaukee	Wisconsin	129	116	4	44.1%	357,595	6.7	29	1	29	0	2	29
Louisville	Kentucky	134	121	4	46.6%	354,799	6.1	32	1	32	0	4	32
Sacramento	California	134	115	4	42.7%	343,628	6.8	28	1	28	0	0	28
Indianapolis	Indiana	142	120	5	36.0%	342,621	7.4	37	1	37	0	0	37
Cleveland	Ohio	127	112	4	45.3%	340,110	6.4	29	1	29	0	0	29
Columbus	Ohio	133	119	5	39.1%	331,135	7.3	30	1	30	0	1	30
Oklahoma City	Oklahoma	142	127	5	48.4%	330,127	6.7	43	1	43	0	0	43
Washington DC	District of Columbia	121	104	4	45.1%	308,688	6.6	28	1	28	0	0	28
Memphis	Tennessee	124	110	5	42.7%	297,205	6.7	26	1	26	0	2	26
Detroit	Michigan	142	120	3	46.3%	296,665	6.2	25	1	25	0	1	25
Pittsburgh	Pennsylvania	135	123	4	42.2%	288,295	6.8	39	1	39	0	1	39
Cincinnati	Ohio	137	123	5	34.4%	276,706	7.4	45	1	45	0	0	45
Baltimore	Maryland	121	109	3	42.0%	265,274	6.9	22	1	22	0	0	22
Colorado Springs	Colorado	120	108	5	45.1%	263,148	6.4	30	1	30	0	1	30
Buffalo	New York	142	124	3	46.2%	260,165	6.3	28	1	28	0	1	28
Raleigh	North Carolina	122	110	3	46.2%	252,593	6.5	15	1	15	0	0	15
Salt Lake City	Utah	127	112	3	51.8%	252,179	5.9	19	1	19	0	2	19
Mesa	Arizona	118	107	4	45.3%	242,280	6.5	13	1	13	0	0	13
Bakersfield	California	112	102	5	41.8%	233,783	6.8	11	1	11	0	0	11
New Orleans	Louisiana	126	113	4	53.4%	228,550	6.1	19	1	19	0	0	19
Albuquerque	New Mexico	126	112	5	34.5%	226,149	7.5	17	1	17	0	0	17
Dayton	Ohio	125	115	5	46.7%	223,100	6.5	27	1	27	0	3	27
Nashville	Tennessee	122	110	4	47.7%	218,839	6.1	22	1	22	0	2	22
Birmingham	Alabama	124	111	4	43.5%	217,556	6.4	30	1	30	0	2	30
Fresno	California	120	105	6	35.9%	216,260	7.2	18	1	18	0	0	18
Kansas City	Missouri	139	128	3	37.7%	215,447	6.9	49	1	49	0	3	49
Rochester	New York	125	108	3	45.3%	213,596	6.4	24	1	24	0	0	24
Hollywood	Florida	114	103	5	44.7%	209,497	6.4	9	1	9	0	0	9
Virginia Beach	Virginia	117	102	3	45.4%	204,516	6.4	12	1	12	0	0	12
Aurora	Colorado	120	110	4	46.6%	203,036	6.2	11	1	11	0	2	11
Staten Island	New York	120	105	4	42.5%	201,444	6.7	12	1	12	0	0	12
Omaha	Nebraska	132	118	5	36.4%	201,218	7.4	31	2	32	0	1	32
Long Beach	California	120	109	4	40.8%	195,508	7.0	12	1	12	0	0	12
Corpus Christi	Texas	122	111	3	58.4%	190,151	5.7	18	1	21	2	4	21
Baton Rouge	Louisiana	125	109	3	50.0%	189,456	5.9	18	1	18	0	2	18
Wichita	Kansas	134	117	3	44.5%	185,864	6.6	26	1	26	0	1	26
Hialeah	Florida	120	106	3	50.5%	185,509	6.1	7	1	7	0	0	7
Spring	Texas	114	103	5	48.1%	183,183	6.3	8	1	8	0	0	8
Riverside	California	113	102	4	49.5%	183,167	6.1	7	1	7	0	0	7
Saint Petersburg	Florida	127	111	4	50.6%	180,511	5.8	16	1	16	0	3	16
Knoxville	Tennessee	117	107	5	46.5%	179,785	6.4	17	1	17	0	1	17
Spokane	Washington	113	104	3	49.9%	179,594	6.1	14	1	14	0	3	14
Richmond	Virginia	117	104	4	45.3%	177,281	6.1	15	1	15	0	1	15
Honolulu	Hawaii	115	102	6	42.0%	174,802	6.8	11	1	11	0	0	11
Oakland	California	115	102	4	42.1%	173,302	6.9	14	1	14	0	0	14
Durham	North Carolina	114	101	3	59.1%	171,549	5.3	8	1	8	0	2	8
Grand Rapids	Michigan	121	109	3	46.0%	169,198	6.3	12	1	12	0	0	12
Tulsa	Oklahoma	133	122	5	39.9%	168,555	7.0	28	1	28	0	0	28
Arlington	Texas	122	107	5	41.9%	166,439	6.7	12	1	12	0	0	12
Katy	Texas	112	102	4	47.9%	164,638	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Reno	Nevada	112	100	4	54.5%	161,844	5.7	12	1	12	0	1	12
Greensboro	North Carolina	116	103	4	48.4%	158,412	6.0	9	1	9	0	0	9
Pompano Beach	Florida	122	109	5	42.6%	158,020	6.6	10	1	10	0	0	10
Santa Ana	California	110	99	4	43.8%	156,489	6.5	6	1	6	0	0	6
Alexandria	Virginia	115	103	4	43.8%	155,329	6.5	14	1	14	0	0	14
Columbia	South Carolina	119	110	4	44.2%	151,681	6.3	14	1	14	0	1	14
West Palm Beach	Florida	116	104	5	40.6%	150,472	6.8	12	1	12	0	0	12
Naples	Florida	125	111	4	46.8%	146,600	6.4	14	1	14	0	1	14
Littleton	Colorado	115	107	4	44.8%	145,666	6.4	10	1	10	0	0	10
Lexington	Kentucky	123	114	5	45.3%	144,765	6.8	15	1	15	0	1	15
Marietta	Georgia	116	106	5	44.5%	143,556	6.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Toledo	Ohio	120	111	3	46.3%	142,474	6.5	15	1	15	0	0	15
Newark	New Jersey	112	101	5	50.4%	141,329	6.2	9	1	9	0	0	9
Jersey City	New Jersey	109	101	5	54.0%	141,215	5.1	7	1	7	0	0	7
Fort Wayne	Indiana	120	107	4	44.1%	140,229	6.3	16	1	16	0	1	16
Tacoma	Washington	119	107	3	41.8%	139,368	6.8	20	1	20	0	0	20
Henderson	Nevada	111	100	5	45.9%	139,029	6.4	8	1	8	0	0	8
Lawrenceville	Georgia	121	109	4	54.2%	138,715	6.0	4	1	4	0	1	4
Scottsdale	Arizona	121	108	4	46.3%	137,914	6.2	11	1	11	0	1	11
Chandler	Arizona	114	103	4	51.0%	136,896	5.7	6	1	6	0	1	6
Silver Spring	Maryland	113	102	4	44.3%	134,291	6.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Anaheim	California	114	102	4	36.3%	133,971	7.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Glendale	Arizona	116	106	4	43.7%	133,148	6.3	9	1	9	0	0	9
Gilbert	Arizona	109	99	4	54.9%	130,949	5.5	6	1	6	0	1	6
Madison	Wisconsin	115	106	5	43.9%	129,503	6.9	14	1	14	0	0	14
Lubbock	Texas	131	117	4	46.6%	128,783	6.4	14	1	14	0	1	14
Sarasota	Florida	118	106	4	51.3%	128,369	6.1	13	1	13	0	1	13
Mobile	Alabama	119	109	3	47.2%	128,020	6.4	18	1	18	0	0	18
Stockton	California	122	108	5	33.9%	126,717	7.1	12	1	13	0	1	13
Vancouver	Washington	116	107	5	38.7%	126,291	7.1	11	1	11	0	0	11
Pensacola	Florida	123	113	4	47.0%	126,169	6.2	13	1	13	0	1	13
North Las Vegas	Nevada	110	99	4	53.9%	126,121	5.9	7	1	7	0	1	7
Plano	Texas	112	103	5	41.2%	125,739	7.0	7	1	7	0	0	7
Lincoln	Nebraska	121	109	5	43.2%	124,975	6.8	22	1	22	0	0	22
Irvine	California	112	101	4	46.6%	124,802	6.4	9	1	9	0	0	9
Akron	Ohio	122	112	5	46.0%	124,443	6.7	17	1	17	0	1	17
San Bernardino	California	113	103	3	49.4%	123,295	6.0	7	1	7	0	0	7
Winston Salem	North Carolina	118	106	3	46.5%	122,726	6.4	9	1	9	0	0	9
Fayetteville	North Carolina	121	107	3	49.8%	121,431	6.1	8	1	8	0	0	8
Bradenton	Florida	120	105	3	47.4%	119,873	6.2	10	1	10	0	1	10
Greenville	South Carolina	109	101	3	54.5%	119,639	5.6	9	1	9	0	2	9
Salem	Oregon	110	101	4	44.7%	119,228	6.6	7	1	7	0	1	7
Kissimmee	Florida	116	103	4	40.9%	118,279	7.0	7	1	7	0	0	7
Jamaica	New York	112	100	4	48.5%	118,240	5.3	6	1	6	0	1	6
Woodbridge	Virginia	106	96	4	55.6%	117,690	5.7	3	1	3	0	1	3
Irving	Texas	111	102	4	48.5%	116,554	6.3	6	1	6	0	1	6
Flushing	New York	107	96	4	53.8%	115,803	6.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Norfolk	Virginia	122	110	5	46.3%	113,776	6.4	14	1	14	0	1	14
Syracuse	New York	119	107	3	49.0%	111,084	6.2	15	1	15	0	0	15
Springfield	Missouri	113	102	3	47.8%	110,150	6.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Wilmington	Delaware	114	105	4	49.8%	109,387	6.1	10	1	10	0	1	10
Fort Myers	Florida	121	112	3	43.2%	108,724	6.7	11	1	11	0	0	11
Chesapeake	Virginia	113	101	4	45.1%	107,313	6.2	6	1	6	0	0	6
Tallahassee	Florida	116	107	5	37.0%	106,617	7.3	10	1	10	0	0	10
Savannah	Georgia	114	104	4	44.0%	106,112	6.7	10	1	10	0	0	10
Chula Vista	California	109	100	4	40.0%	104,332	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Shreveport	Louisiana	118	105	4	46.6%	103,957	6.3	12	1	12	0	1	12
Huntsville	Alabama	118	108	3	52.8%	103,679	5.8	11	1	11	0	1	11
Garland	Texas	106	96	5	43.4%	103,371	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Lakeland	Florida	115	105	5	39.9%	103,002	6.9	9	1	9	0	0	9
Tempe	Arizona	112	103	4	54.0%	102,590	5.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Modesto	California	111	101	5	38.5%	101,730	7.0	7	1	7	0	0	7
Laredo	Texas	126	110	6	37.5%	101,561	7.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Anchorage	Alaska	118	108	5	41.2%	100,509	6.4	12	1	12	0	0	12
Reading	Pennsylvania	113	104	4	46.1%	99,311	6.6	10	1	10	0	1	10
Boise	Idaho	111	100	5	38.5%	98,656	7.0	9	1	9	0	0	9
Lake Worth	Florida	109	99	5	47.7%	98,445	6.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Cary	North Carolina	123	108	3	63.3%	98,374	4.8	4	1	4	0	1	4
York	Pennsylvania	115	104	3	53.9%	96,820	6.0	7	1	7	0	1	7
Oxnard	California	107	98	5	43.8%	96,531	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Corona	California	111	98	5	37.2%	95,650	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Gainesville	Florida	119	107	3	45.4%	95,067	6.6	10	1	10	0	0	10
Fremont	California	107	98	4	40.6%	94,704	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ocala	Florida	118	107	4	41.9%	94,284	6.8	11	1	11	0	0	11
Boca Raton	Florida	119	106	5	42.4%	94,262	6.4	9	1	9	0	1	9
Chattanooga	Tennessee	120	107	5	45.0%	93,449	6.3	15	1	15	0	2	15
Harrisburg	Pennsylvania	115	106	3	53.8%	91,092	5.7	9	1	9	0	1	9
Boynton Beach	Florida	114	101	3	51.8%	90,137	6.3	6	1	6	0	1	6
Tuscaloosa	Alabama	111	102	2	73.0%	89,562	4.5	4	2	5	1	2	5
Port Saint Lucie	Florida	116	104	4	43.6%	88,465	6.7	6	1	6	0	0	6
Fredericksburg	Virginia	115	103	4	50.5%	87,929	5.6	5	1	5	0	1	5
Amarillo	Texas	117	105	6	37.7%	86,282	7.1	14	1	14	0	0	14
Humble	Texas	108	98	4	51.8%	86,262	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Trenton	New Jersey	116	104	4	41.5%	86,232	6.9	11	1	11	0	0	11
Vallejo	California	107	98	4	69.1%	86,021	5.0	4	1	4	0	1	4
Montgomery	Alabama	115	105	5	40.6%	85,160	6.8	13	1	13	0	0	13
Grand Prairie	Texas	106	96	4	44.5%	84,850	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Everett	Washington	112	100	4	50.8%	84,726	5.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Cape Coral	Florida	115	104	4	46.7%	84,433	6.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Overland Park	Kansas	116	104	3	45.9%	84,127	6.6	9	1	9	0	0	9
Fontana	California	109	98	5	35.8%	83,962	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Las Cruces	New Mexico	120	107	4	56.1%	83,540	5.7	7	1	7	0	1	7
Little Rock	Arkansas	117	106	6	38.1%	83,180	7.3	12	1	12	0	0	12
Naperville	Illinois	107	97	5	50.1%	83,066	6.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ann Arbor	Michigan	114	103	3	49.7%	82,807	6.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Des Moines	Iowa	117	107	6	36.9%	82,472	7.0	11	1	11	0	0	11
Charleston	South Carolina	121	110	3	41.8%	82,281	6.8	10	1	10	0	0	10
Moreno Valley	California	109	99	5	40.0%	82,182	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Metairie	Louisiana	111	102	4	57.7%	82,079	5.4	5	1	5	0	1	5
Henrico	Virginia	120	109	3	42.5%	81,840	6.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Erie	Pennsylvania	116	105	4	44.6%	81,828	6.6	13	1	13	0	1	13
Olympia	Washington	110	98	5	44.4%	81,132	6.8	6	1	6	0	1	6
Gaithersburg	Maryland	121	106	4	56.1%	81,084	6.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Newport News	Virginia	112	99	4	45.9%	81,023	6.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
Denton	Texas	110	101	5	51.0%	80,733	5.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Lakewood	New Jersey	98	91	3	80.0%	80,610	3.0	1	1	1	0	1	1
Kalamazoo	Michigan	115	103	4	48.7%	79,952	6.1	7	1	7	0	0	7
North Hollywood	California	108	98	4	52.1%	79,815	6.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ogden	Utah	110	101	6	39.6%	79,751	7.0	5	1	5	0	1	5
Jackson	Mississippi	113	99	5	46.1%	78,574	6.7	11	1	11	0	0	11
Joliet	Illinois	108	97	3	60.9%	78,507	5.4	5	1	5	0	1	5
Santa Maria	California	106	97	4	54.9%	78,507	5.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Mission	Texas	105	95	5	43.1%	78,138	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Van Nuys	California	105	95	4	43.9%	78,027	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Allentown	Pennsylvania	111	101	4	45.8%	77,830	6.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Providence	Rhode Island	109	98	5	37.9%	77,800	6.9	8	1	8	0	1	8
Rockford	Illinois	114	104	6	42.4%	77,230	6.8	9	1	9	0	0	9
Edinburg	Texas	112	102	5	49.4%	76,899	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Orem	Utah	104	96	3	76.2%	76,393	3.3	3	1	3	0	2	3
Eugene	Oregon	113	103	8	37.5%	76,166	7.0	6	1	6	0	0	6
Oceanside	California	106	96	4	37.9%	75,886	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Evansville	Indiana	134	120	4	41.1%	75,749	6.9	9	1	9	0	0	9
Odessa	Texas	112	103	5	47.2%	75,485	6.5	6	1	6	0	1	6
Pueblo	Colorado	111	98	6	47.5%	75,182	5.6	7	1	7	0	2	7
Round Rock	Texas	107	99	5	44.8%	75,124	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Flint	Michigan	117	105	5	48.1%	74,768	6.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Bloomington	Indiana	107	97	3	56.0%	74,739	4.7	6	1	6	0	3	6
Lafayette	Louisiana	109	100	4	46.5%	74,657	6.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Stamford	Connecticut	112	102	5	57.8%	74,453	6.2	6	1	6	0	0	6
Whittier	California	108	98	5	37.9%	74,369	7.2	6	1	6	0	0	6
Norwalk	California	99	91	4	70.0%	74,120	4.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Rancho Cucamonga	California	109	98	5	41.9%	73,968	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Clearwater	Florida	123	109	4	40.3%	73,834	7.0	9	1	9	0	0	9
Pasadena	California	113	103	4	46.8%	73,772	6.5	6	1	6	0	0	6
Lancaster	California	105	96	5	40.0%	73,768	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Pearland	Texas	104	96	5	53.6%	73,760	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Huntington Beach	California	111	99	4	36.9%	73,691	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Melbourne	Florida	117	107	3	46.9%	73,086	6.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Brownsville	Texas	109	100	7	36.2%	72,879	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Hampton	Virginia	114	100	4	53.4%	72,689	6.0	6	1	6	0	0	6
Schenectady	New York	113	101	4	44.8%	72,685	6.3	8	1	8	0	0	8
Torrance	California	113	103	5	41.0%	72,536	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Sioux Falls	South Dakota	115	106	5	39.9%	72,446	7.0	9	1	9	0	0	9
Clarksville	Tennessee	105	96	5	41.2%	72,415	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Bellevue	Washington	112	101	4	49.3%	72,076	5.8	5	1	5	0	1	5
Peoria	Arizona	110	99	5	41.9%	72,033	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Escondido	California	104	94	5	40.0%	71,861	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Topeka	Kansas	117	105	5	43.9%	71,810	6.3	18	1	18	0	2	18
Bell Gardens	California	99	90	4	70.0%	71,703	4.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Waco	Texas	112	100	5	45.3%	71,677	6.9	9	1	9	0	0	9
Visalia	California	108	99	5	47.0%	71,409	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
South Bend	Indiana	130	116	4	48.7%	71,399	6.1	10	1	10	0	1	10
Fort Collins	Colorado	110	101	5	36.6%	71,261	7.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Midland	Texas	113	102	5	44.0%	70,456	6.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Bothell	Washington	110	98	4	54.9%	70,401	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Edmond	Oklahoma	109	100	6	41.0%	70,333	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Sunnyvale	California	107	98	5	45.9%	70,165	6.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Asheville	North Carolina	112	100	4	53.1%	70,153	5.4	5	1	5	0	1	5
Roanoke	Virginia	112	100	6	41.4%	70,096	6.5	10	1	10	0	0	10
Decatur	Georgia	109	99	6	38.7%	70,060	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Ontario	California	109	98	5	39.6%	70,029	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Orange	California	111	100	4	48.2%	69,884	6.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Lansing	Michigan	118	107	4	42.3%	69,573	6.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Billings	Montana	106	98	5	50.5%	69,320	6.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Carrollton	Texas	109	98	5	51.4%	69,265	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Alpharetta	Georgia	109	98	5	36.6%	69,254	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Manassas	Virginia	110	101	3	45.5%	69,201	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Fullerton	California	106	97	5	49.7%	69,200	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Santa Rosa	California	112	100	5	32.0%	69,066	7.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Conroe	Texas	111	101	4	43.1%	69,039	6.6	7	1	7	0	0	7
El Cajon	California	109	97	6	40.0%	68,985	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Frisco	Texas	105	95	6	40.0%	68,979	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Yonkers	New York	109	99	5	38.2%	68,923	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Hayward	California	108	98	6	35.8%	68,786	7.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Surprise	Arizona	106	98	5	50.6%	68,561	6.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Roseville	California	106	95	5	49.0%	68,448	5.7	3	1	3	0	1	3
Bridgeport	Connecticut	112	102	4	46.7%	68,437	5.8	6	1	6	0	1	6
Falls Church	Virginia	107	96	3	56.7%	68,198	5.6	5	1	5	0	1	5
Albany	New York	117	102	4	44.9%	67,861	6.7	11	1	11	0	0	11
La Puente	California	105	96	5	57.4%	67,698	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Charlottesville	Virginia	113	100	6	55.0%	67,619	6.0	5	1	5	0	1	5
Tyler	Texas	115	104	5	43.1%	67,274	6.7	9	1	9	0	0	9
Salinas	California	106	96	4	35.6%	67,014	7.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Kent	Washington	113	102	3	41.7%	66,990	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Mesquite	Texas	106	98	5	45.7%	66,911	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Garden Grove	California	110	97	5	38.1%	66,898	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Rockville	Maryland	109	101	4	46.0%	66,631	5.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
South Gate	California	99	90	4	70.0%	66,572	4.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
West Jordan	Utah	112	103	4	53.9%	66,560	5.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Worcester	Massachusetts	117	103	8	35.8%	66,475	7.6	9	1	9	0	0	9
Napa	California	101	92	3	68.6%	66,323	5.0	2	1	2	0	1	2
Beaverton	Oregon	112	102	6	32.8%	66,113	7.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Hamilton	Ohio	110	102	5	48.2%	66,079	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Youngstown	Ohio	116	105	5	41.9%	65,820	6.8	12	1	12	0	0	12
Murrieta	California	106	96	6	49.7%	65,721	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
San Mateo	California	106	97	6	46.0%	65,448	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Sparks	Nevada	108	98	4	54.9%	65,448	5.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Killeen	Texas	110	101	6	43.6%	65,426	6.5	4	1	4	0	1	4
Hyattsville	Maryland	113	97	6	41.5%	65,343	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Elk Grove	California	109	96	5	36.3%	65,153	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Murfreesboro	Tennessee	114	105	9	34.8%	64,814	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Augusta	Georgia	117	107	7	31.7%	64,707	7.8	8	1	8	0	0	8
Olathe	Kansas	107	98	6	44.4%	64,138	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Paterson	New Jersey	112	99	4	43.6%	63,588	6.7	9	1	9	0	0	9
Hemet	California	105	95	4	49.0%	63,058	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Inglewood	California	124	112	4	47.0%	62,858	6.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Lake Charles	Louisiana	112	102	4	48.0%	62,755	6.0	5	1	5	0	1	5
Midlothian	Virginia	103	94	4	64.8%	62,729	4.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Sandy	Utah	111	103	4	56.4%	62,268	5.3	4	1	4	0	1	4
Warren	Michigan	115	103	3	45.9%	62,104	6.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Macon	Georgia	118	108	4	37.7%	61,782	7.3	9	1	9	0	0	9
Bethlehem	Pennsylvania	109	99	4	49.2%	61,596	6.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Elgin	Illinois	107	97	4	50.3%	61,500	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Puyallup	Washington	112	101	6	43.0%	61,453	6.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Canton	Ohio	117	105	4	41.5%	60,960	7.0	12	1	12	0	0	12
Mckinney	Texas	106	98	8	32.0%	60,481	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Cypress	Texas	108	101	8	35.2%	60,015	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Temecula	California	109	99	6	46.2%	59,968	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Palm Bay	Florida	107	100	5	53.8%	59,845	5.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Mcallen	Texas	109	100	5	42.1%	59,594	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Yuma	Arizona	107	99	4	40.0%	59,039	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Renton	Washington	112	100	6	38.1%	58,924	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
New Braunfels	Texas	104	96	5	57.2%	58,813	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Mission Viejo	California	105	95	3	59.7%	58,694	5.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Abilene	Texas	111	102	6	44.9%	58,472	6.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Florissant	Missouri	108	99	4	54.0%	58,444	5.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Muskegon	Michigan	111	100	6	45.2%	58,329	6.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Miami Beach	Florida	113	99	4	50.4%	58,275	6.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Spartanburg	South Carolina	114	105	3	52.0%	58,181	5.8	5	1	5	0	2	5
Longview	Texas	122	109	4	55.1%	58,019	6.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Astoria	New York	111	100	7	40.6%	57,928	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Homestead	Florida	111	99	6	30.9%	57,904	7.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Cumming	Georgia	106	97	6	35.6%	57,757	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Herndon	Virginia	104	94	3	61.5%	57,520	5.0	2	1	2	0	1	2
Saginaw	Michigan	118	107	5	44.1%	57,477	6.9	7	1	7	0	0	7
Sterling Heights	Michigan	112	104	6	43.3%	57,334	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Cedar Rapids	Iowa	114	101	5	41.1%	57,333	7.2	6	1	6	0	0	6
Simi Valley	California	101	92	5	44.4%	57,150	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
El Monte	California	103	94	4	60.4%	56,556	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Longmont	Colorado	108	98	6	43.2%	56,501	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Boulder	Colorado	112	102	6	43.0%	56,389	6.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Hartford	Connecticut	105	97	4	45.6%	56,202	6.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Coral Springs	Florida	104	96	4	57.7%	56,115	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Lynnwood	Washington	104	95	5	51.8%	56,104	6.0	3	1	3	0	1	3
Auburn	Washington	112	101	5	49.7%	56,059	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Spring Hill	Florida	110	99	5	44.7%	56,048	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Pomona	California	107	97	5	35.4%	55,961	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Clovis	California	106	97	6	45.8%	55,644	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Compton	California	106	98	5	40.0%	55,550	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Toms River	New Jersey	109	99	5	45.1%	55,447	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Livonia	Michigan	109	98	3	58.2%	55,021	5.0	3	1	3	0	1	3
Green Bay	Wisconsin	112	103	7	30.0%	55,000	8.0	7	1	7	0	0	7
Broken Arrow	Oklahoma	106	97	6	41.7%	54,432	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Panama City	Florida	107	99	5	43.1%	54,412	6.7	6	1	6	0	1	6
San Leandro	California	108	97	4	48.7%	54,188	6.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Racine	Wisconsin	111	103	4	42.8%	53,960	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Fargo	North Dakota	108	100	5	44.0%	53,882	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Bellingham	Washington	106	96	4	42.5%	53,819	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
High Point	North Carolina	110	99	5	43.8%	53,564	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ypsilanti	Michigan	118	108	5	50.0%	53,450	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Ridgewood	New York	99	91	4	50.0%	53,359	6.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Daytona Beach	Florida	108	98	4	51.7%	53,347	5.8	5	1	5	0	1	5
Arvada	Colorado	110	101	6	39.9%	53,251	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Tracy	California	106	96	3	45.3%	53,121	6.3	4	1	4	0	1	4
Fairfax	Virginia	106	96	6	32.5%	53,110	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Elkhart	Indiana	109	101	5	53.4%	53,096	6.0	3	1	3	0	1	3
Baytown	Texas	108	98	4	45.1%	53,089	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Lehigh Acres	Florida	110	101	5	45.3%	52,998	6.3	6	1	6	0	1	6
Palmdale	California	106	97	7	30.0%	52,481	8.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Concord	California	107	98	5	40.3%	52,449	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Yakima	Washington	109	100	6	40.4%	52,406	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
New Port Richey	Florida	111	101	4	43.3%	52,271	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Delray Beach	Florida	109	100	5	43.8%	52,160	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
New Haven	Connecticut	106	98	5	40.0%	52,087	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Deltona	Florida	102	93	4	55.3%	51,958	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Lees Summit	Missouri	110	98	4	50.6%	51,643	6.2	6	1	6	0	1	6
Berkeley	California	110	99	4	40.6%	51,610	7.0	9	1	9	0	0	9
Largo	Florida	113	105	5	47.9%	51,600	6.0	5	1	5	0	1	5
Broomfield	Colorado	105	96	4	49.1%	51,474	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Hillsboro	Oregon	106	95	4	50.0%	51,436	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Saint Augustine	Florida	112	104	6	39.2%	51,420	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Appleton	Wisconsin	107	99	5	42.2%	51,374	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ashburn	Virginia	104	95	3	45.7%	51,343	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Antioch	California	107	99	4	46.0%	50,982	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Duluth	Minnesota	115	106	6	43.5%	50,916	6.5	11	1	11	0	0	11
Frederick	Maryland	106	96	8	38.5%	50,754	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Sugar Land	Texas	105	97	8	30.0%	50,678	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
West Valley City	Utah	106	96	7	38.0%	50,462	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Dearborn	Michigan	110	99	4	53.0%	50,438	6.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Lithonia	Georgia	103	95	6	52.1%	50,436	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Norman	Oklahoma	111	100	6	40.6%	50,424	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Lewisville	Texas	109	100	5	42.4%	50,293	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Victorville	California	105	95	5	36.9%	50,250	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Springdale	Arkansas	104	96	5	51.7%	49,851	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Buford	Georgia	102	94	3	50.0%	49,552	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Santa Barbara	California	111	99	4	36.3%	49,355	7.4	7	1	7	0	0	7
Apopka	Florida	105	95	4	50.0%	48,827	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Riverview	Florida	104	96	4	43.8%	48,812	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Chico	California	105	96	4	43.4%	48,562	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Menifee	California	108	98	4	43.8%	48,388	6.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Kennewick	Washington	106	96	5	48.9%	48,351	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Johnson City	Tennessee	108	99	4	50.6%	48,312	6.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Myrtle Beach	South Carolina	108	99	6	33.1%	48,222	7.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Clinton Township	Michigan	111	102	4	47.8%	47,984	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Santa Clara	California	107	97	5	38.1%	47,780	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Lawrence	Kansas	111	102	6	46.9%	47,441	6.4	5	1	5	0	0	5
Summerville	South Carolina	104	96	7	34.1%	47,383	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
West Covina	California	111	100	4	43.1%	47,200	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Scranton	Pennsylvania	117	104	3	47.4%	47,079	6.5	8	1	8	0	0	8
Waterbury	Connecticut	109	101	5	43.3%	47,079	6.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Waukegan	Illinois	104	96	6	48.2%	47,015	5.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Perris	California	106	96	7	40.0%	46,956	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Medford	Oregon	106	98	5	50.0%	46,626	6.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Rock Hill	South Carolina	108	99	6	40.1%	46,622	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Provo	Utah	108	99	5	40.0%	46,609	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Burbank	California	109	100	5	42.8%	46,274	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Vacaville	California	101	92	4	43.5%	45,841	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Redwood City	California	105	95	5	40.0%	45,785	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
San Angelo	Texas	108	99	7	41.1%	45,571	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Portsmouth	Virginia	112	102	4	47.8%	45,522	6.0	7	1	7	0	1	7
Costa Mesa	California	104	95	7	40.0%	45,501	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Morgantown	West Virginia	105	96	4	47.7%	45,426	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Chapel Hill	North Carolina	110	99	3	45.8%	44,818	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Santa Cruz	California	106	95	6	43.0%	44,709	6.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Bowling Green	Kentucky	108	97	8	38.7%	44,679	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Anderson	South Carolina	107	99	6	45.4%	44,668	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Athens	Georgia	115	106	6	35.8%	44,666	7.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Englewood	Colorado	109	100	4	40.0%	44,612	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Richardson	Texas	109	101	6	38.9%	44,599	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Kenosha	Wisconsin	112	104	6	39.5%	44,586	7.0	4	1	4	0	0	4
Santa Fe	New Mexico	109	99	6	34.7%	44,446	7.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Westerville	Ohio	107	98	5	46.5%	44,240	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Daly City	California	103	94	6	38.7%	44,224	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Edison	New Jersey	107	97	6	43.8%	44,210	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Bend	Oregon	109	99	6	36.1%	44,136	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Lynchburg	Virginia	107	97	5	43.1%	44,114	6.0	4	1	4	0	1	4
Acworth	Georgia	109	99	6	44.2%	44,037	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Beaumont	Texas	114	103	7	30.2%	43,926	7.9	8	1	8	0	0	8
West Chester	Pennsylvania	103	94	5	40.0%	43,478	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Terre Haute	Indiana	112	103	4	45.5%	43,172	6.8	6	1	6	0	0	6
Gastonia	North Carolina	107	97	5	39.9%	42,725	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Stone Mountain	Georgia	108	98	8	33.1%	42,493	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Pacoima	California	100	90	5	40.0%	42,320	7.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Plainfield	Illinois	106	98	7	42.8%	42,177	6.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Holland	Michigan	107	98	5	44.8%	42,098	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Wichita Falls	Texas	115	105	5	42.4%	41,900	6.7	7	1	7	0	0	7
Laurel	Maryland	109	99	4	36.9%	41,480	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ventura	California	104	95	5	35.7%	41,425	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Vero Beach	Florida	114	101	7	35.5%	40,942	7.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Merced	California	108	100	7	39.6%	40,831	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Redding	California	110	99	6	36.1%	40,824	7.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Rio Rancho	New Mexico	102	93	7	41.9%	40,789	6.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Jupiter	Florida	107	97	7	41.3%	40,717	6.8	4	1	4	0	0	4
Allen	Texas	102	94	5	36.3%	40,441	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Fort Mill	South Carolina	106	98	5	42.5%	40,371	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
San Marcos	California	107	98	7	40.0%	40,192	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Parker	Colorado	108	100	7	40.0%	40,113	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Federal Way	Washington	105	95	7	40.0%	40,015	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Vista	California	106	97	6	33.3%	39,864	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Idaho Falls	Idaho	107	97	6	36.5%	39,812	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Annapolis	Maryland	110	101	4	41.8%	39,746	6.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Clermont	Florida	108	96	6	39.6%	39,723	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Waukesha	Wisconsin	117	107	5	41.4%	39,661	6.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Nampa	Idaho	109	99	8	34.1%	39,534	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Palo Alto	California	107	96	5	40.8%	39,416	6.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Elizabeth	New Jersey	106	97	6	39.0%	39,208	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Livermore	California	105	95	4	40.5%	38,976	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Missoula	Montana	111	102	6	40.0%	38,876	6.6	5	1	5	0	1	5
Davenport	Iowa	109	100	5	37.0%	38,818	7.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Missouri City	Texas	109	99	8	36.6%	38,783	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Hawthorne	California	101	90	6	40.0%	38,734	7.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Meridian	Idaho	107	99	7	37.0%	38,602	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Sylmar	California	100	94	5	40.0%	38,595	7.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Santa Monica	California	105	96	5	40.8%	38,490	6.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Carlsbad	California	109	96	7	33.8%	38,447	7.5	4	1	4	0	0	4
Pittsburg	California	98	90	4	40.0%	38,432	7.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Muncie	Indiana	110	100	4	41.3%	38,300	7.2	5	1	5	0	0	5
Downey	California	100	91	6	33.9%	38,285	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Grand Junction	Colorado	108	97	5	36.2%	38,214	7.3	6	1	6	0	0	6
Fairfield	California	102	93	5	33.4%	38,068	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Bowie	Maryland	111	100	4	37.1%	37,885	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Ballwin	Missouri	105	95	5	40.0%	37,868	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Douglasville	Georgia	109	99	8	34.0%	37,486	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Milton	Florida	108	99	7	39.5%	37,434	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Fort Pierce	Florida	119	105	5	39.1%	37,387	7.1	8	1	8	0	0	8
Saint Charles	Missouri	104	95	6	26.6%	37,167	8.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Covington	Georgia	107	98	7	40.0%	37,075	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
College Station	Texas	107	98	8	30.0%	36,915	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Woodstock	Georgia	104	96	7	36.2%	36,833	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Boston	Massachusetts	115	105	9	24.2%	36,760	8.6	14	1	14	0	0	14
Mcdonough	Georgia	107	98	8	35.4%	35,956	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Belleville	Illinois	106	97	4	38.2%	35,589	7.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Winter Haven	Florida	107	97	7	33.0%	35,270	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Roswell	Georgia	108	97	8	35.3%	35,264	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Indio	California	103	94	5	36.4%	34,976	7.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Keller	Texas	108	99	8	30.0%	34,877	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Madera	California	105	94	7	33.8%	34,828	7.7	3	1	3	0	0	3
Champaign	Illinois	110	98	6	36.8%	34,769	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Greeley	Colorado	104	95	8	30.0%	34,220	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Kennesaw	Georgia	108	97	9	34.4%	34,070	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Rialto	California	106	97	7	31.8%	33,931	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Cambridge	Massachusetts	109	100	9	29.2%	33,775	7.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
O Fallon	Missouri	105	95	9	34.9%	33,622	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Hagerstown	Maryland	109	100	7	33.8%	33,129	7.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Franklin	Tennessee	105	96	7	30.9%	32,878	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Independence	Missouri	112	103	10	26.4%	32,789	8.4	8	1	8	0	0	8
Manchester	New Hampshire	113	101	9	28.1%	32,653	7.6	5	1	5	0	0	5
Gulfport	Mississippi	111	99	7	34.2%	32,388	7.3	3	1	3	0	0	3
Lowell	Massachusetts	108	100	6	29.0%	32,313	8.3	4	1	4	0	0	4
Rapid City	South Dakota	104	96	8	33.0%	31,967	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Brockton	Massachusetts	103	95	9	33.4%	31,878	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Newnan	Georgia	105	96	7	33.7%	31,488	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Hesperia	California	105	94	7	30.0%	31,143	8.0	2	1	2	0	0	2
Bryan	Texas	114	105	10	31.2%	29,996	7.8	5	1	5	0	0	5
Valdosta	Georgia	112	103	8	30.7%	29,132	7.0	5	1	5	0	0	5
Chino	California	105	96	6	30.4%	28,731	7.5	2	1	2	0	0	2
Elmhurst	New York	100	91	8	30.0%	28,190	8.0	1	1	1	0	0	1
Quincy	Massachusetts	107	96	10	25.9%	24,395	8.0	3	1	3	0	0	3
Lynn	Massachusetts	107	97	8	23.5%	21,958	7.8	4	1	4	0	0	4

California

City	Competition	Business intelligence metrics	RAW Data (Google Search Results across all ZIPs)
Los Angeles	147	126	4	47.6%	1,170,107	6.2	62	1	62	3	62
San Diego	134	116	5	40.0%	539,290	7.0	36	1	36	0	36
San Jose	129	116	4	44.8%	470,188	6.5	28	1	28	2	28
San Francisco	121	106	5	46.4%	404,144	6.5	28	1	28	2	28
Sacramento	134	115	4	42.7%	343,628	6.8	28	1	28	0	28
Bakersfield	112	102	5	41.8%	233,783	6.8	11	1	11	0	11
Fresno	120	105	6	35.9%	216,260	7.2	18	1	18	0	18
Long Beach	120	109	4	40.8%	195,508	7.0	12	1	12	0	12
Riverside	113	102	4	49.5%	183,167	6.1	7	1	7	0	7
Oakland	115	102	4	42.1%	173,302	6.9	14	1	14	0	14
Santa Ana	110	99	4	43.8%	156,489	6.5	6	1	6	0	6
Anaheim	114	102	4	36.3%	133,971	7.4	7	1	7	0	7
Stockton	122	108	5	33.9%	126,717	7.1	12	1	13	1	13
Irvine	112	101	4	46.6%	124,802	6.4	9	1	9	0	9
San Bernardino	113	103	3	49.4%	123,295	6.0	7	1	7	0	7
Chula Vista	109	100	4	40.0%	104,332	7.0	5	1	5	0	5
Modesto	111	101	5	38.5%	101,730	7.0	7	1	7	0	7
Oxnard	107	98	5	43.8%	96,531	6.8	4	1	4	0	4
Corona	111	98	5	37.2%	95,650	7.2	5	1	5	0	5
Fremont	107	98	4	40.6%	94,704	7.0	4	1	4	0	4
Vallejo	107	98	4	69.1%	86,021	5.0	4	1	4	1	4
Fontana	109	98	5	35.8%	83,962	7.3	3	1	3	0	3
Moreno Valley	109	99	5	40.0%	82,182	7.0	4	1	4	0	4
North Hollywood	108	98	4	52.1%	79,815	6.0	4	1	4	0	4
Santa Maria	106	97	4	54.9%	78,507	5.7	3	1	3	0	3
Van Nuys	105	95	4	43.9%	78,027	6.5	4	1	4	0	4
Oceanside	106	96	4	37.9%	75,886	7.3	4	1	4	0	4
Whittier	108	98	5	37.9%	74,369	7.2	6	1	6	0	6
Norwalk	99	91	4	70.0%	74,120	4.0	1	1	1	0	1
Rancho Cucamonga	109	98	5	41.9%	73,968	6.5	4	1	4	0	4
Pasadena	113	103	4	46.8%	73,772	6.5	6	1	6	0	6
Lancaster	105	96	5	40.0%	73,768	7.0	3	1	3	0	3
Huntington Beach	111	99	4	36.9%	73,691	7.3	4	1	4	0	4
Torrance	113	103	5	41.0%	72,536	6.8	5	1	5	0	5
Escondido	104	94	5	40.0%	71,861	7.0	4	1	4	0	4
Bell Gardens	99	90	4	70.0%	71,703	4.0	1	1	1	0	1
Visalia	108	99	5	47.0%	71,409	6.3	3	1	3	0	3
Sunnyvale	107	98	5	45.9%	70,165	6.0	4	1	4	0	4
Ontario	109	98	5	39.6%	70,029	7.0	3	1	3	0	3
Orange	111	100	4	48.2%	69,884	6.6	5	1	5	0	5
Fullerton	106	97	5	49.7%	69,200	6.5	4	1	4	0	4
Santa Rosa	112	100	5	32.0%	69,066	7.8	6	1	6	0	6
El Cajon	109	97	6	40.0%	68,985	7.0	3	1	3	0	3
Hayward	108	98	6	35.8%	68,786	7.5	4	1	4	0	4
Roseville	106	95	5	49.0%	68,448	5.7	3	1	3	1	3
La Puente	105	96	5	57.4%	67,698	5.5	2	1	2	0	2
Salinas	106	96	4	35.6%	67,014	7.4	5	1	5	0	5
Garden Grove	110	97	5	38.1%	66,898	7.2	5	1	5	0	5
South Gate	99	90	4	70.0%	66,572	4.0	1	1	1	0	1
Napa	101	92	3	68.6%	66,323	5.0	2	1	2	1	2
Murrieta	106	96	6	49.7%	65,721	6.0	2	1	2	0	2
San Mateo	106	97	6	46.0%	65,448	6.5	4	1	4	0	4
Elk Grove	109	96	5	36.3%	65,153	7.3	3	1	3	0	3
Hemet	105	95	4	49.0%	63,058	6.0	3	1	3	0	3
Inglewood	124	112	4	47.0%	62,858	6.4	5	1	5	0	5
Temecula	109	99	6	46.2%	59,968	7.0	3	1	3	0	3
Mission Viejo	105	95	3	59.7%	58,694	5.0	2	1	2	0	2
Simi Valley	101	92	5	44.4%	57,150	6.5	2	1	2	0	2
El Monte	103	94	4	60.4%	56,556	5.5	2	1	2	0	2
Pomona	107	97	5	35.4%	55,961	7.3	3	1	3	0	3
Clovis	106	97	6	45.8%	55,644	6.3	3	1	3	0	3
Compton	106	98	5	40.0%	55,550	7.0	3	1	3	0	3
San Leandro	108	97	4	48.7%	54,188	6.0	3	1	3	0	3
Tracy	106	96	3	45.3%	53,121	6.3	4	1	4	1	4
Palmdale	106	97	7	30.0%	52,481	8.0	4	1	4	0	4
Concord	107	98	5	40.3%	52,449	6.8	4	1	4	0	4
Berkeley	110	99	4	40.6%	51,610	7.0	9	1	9	0	9
Antioch	107	99	4	46.0%	50,982	6.5	2	1	2	0	2
Victorville	105	95	5	36.9%	50,250	7.3	3	1	3	0	3
Santa Barbara	111	99	4	36.3%	49,355	7.4	7	1	7	0	7
Chico	105	96	4	43.4%	48,562	6.7	3	1	3	0	3
Menifee	108	98	4	43.8%	48,388	6.5	4	1	4	0	4
Santa Clara	107	97	5	38.1%	47,780	7.3	4	1	4	0	4
West Covina	111	100	4	43.1%	47,200	6.7	3	1	3	0	3
Perris	106	96	7	40.0%	46,956	7.0	2	1	2	0	2
Burbank	109	100	5	42.8%	46,274	6.8	5	1	5	0	5
Vacaville	101	92	4	43.5%	45,841	6.5	2	1	2	0	2
Redwood City	105	95	5	40.0%	45,785	7.0	4	1	4	0	4
Costa Mesa	104	95	7	40.0%	45,501	7.0	2	1	2	0	2
Santa Cruz	106	95	6	43.0%	44,709	6.3	4	1	4	0	4
Daly City	103	94	6	38.7%	44,224	7.0	2	1	2	0	2
Pacoima	100	90	5	40.0%	42,320	7.0	1	1	1	0	1
Ventura	104	95	5	35.7%	41,425	7.3	3	1	3	0	3
Merced	108	100	7	39.6%	40,831	7.0	3	1	3	0	3
Redding	110	99	6	36.1%	40,824	7.5	4	1	4	0	4
San Marcos	107	98	7	40.0%	40,192	7.0	2	1	2	0	2
Vista	106	97	6	33.3%	39,864	7.7	3	1	3	0	3
Palo Alto	107	96	5	40.8%	39,416	6.3	4	1	4	0	4
Livermore	105	95	4	40.5%	38,976	7.0	2	1	2	0	2
Hawthorne	101	90	6	40.0%	38,734	7.0	1	1	1	0	1
Sylmar	100	94	5	40.0%	38,595	7.0	1	1	1	0	1
Santa Monica	105	96	5	40.8%	38,490	6.8	5	1	5	0	5
Carlsbad	109	96	7	33.8%	38,447	7.5	4	1	4	0	4
Pittsburg	98	90	4	40.0%	38,432	7.0	1	1	1	0	1
Downey	100	91	6	33.9%	38,285	7.7	3	1	3	0	3
Fairfield	102	93	5	33.4%	38,068	7.5	2	1	2	0	2
Indio	103	94	5	36.4%	34,976	7.0	2	1	2	0	2
Madera	105	94	7	33.8%	34,828	7.7	3	1	3	0	3
Rialto	106	97	7	31.8%	33,931	7.5	2	1	2	0	2
Hesperia	105	94	7	30.0%	31,143	8.0	2	1	2	0	2
Chino	105	96	6	30.4%	28,731	7.5	2	1	2	0	2

Houston

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

Local Competitors

RAW Rankings

Turn This Data Into an Unfair Advantage for Esurance

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

Esurance 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

Esurance 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

Esurance 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

Esurance Market Research15 KPIs for Every City & State Delivered Monthly