Best- & Worst-Run Cities in America (2025)

Adam McCann, WalletHub Financial WriterJun 17, 2025

Adam McCann, WalletHub Financial Writer
Jun 17, 2025

The past year has been a true test of the effectiveness of local leadership. City leaders have had to deal with economic difficulties like high inflation, as well as other issues such as mass shootings with over 500 reported in 2024, keeping gun crime in the political spotlight.

Even during less difficult times, running a city is a tall order. The larger the city, the more complex it becomes to manage. In addition to representing the residents, local leaders must balance the public’s diverse interests with the city’s limited resources. That often means not everyone’s needs can or will be met. Leaders must carefully consider which services are most essential, which agencies’ budgets to cut or boost, and whether and how much to raise taxes, among other decisions.

But how do we measure the effectiveness of local leadership? One way is by determining a city’s operating efficiency. In other words, we can learn how well city officials manage and spend public funds by comparing the quality of the services residents receive against the city’s total budget.

Using that approach, WalletHub compared the operating efficiency of 148 of the largest U.S. cities to reveal which among them are managed best. We constructed a “Quality of Services” score made up of 36 metrics grouped into six service categories, which we then measured against the city’s per-capita budget.

“The best-run cities in America use their budgets most effectively to provide high-quality financial security, education, health, safety and transportation to their residents. Many of the top cities also have a very low amount of outstanding government debt per capita, which can prevent financial troubles in the future.”

Chip Lupo, WalletHub Analyst

Table of Contents

Main Findings

Embed on your website

<iframe src="https://cdn.wallethub.com/wallethub/embed/22869/geochart-bestrun-2025.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869">WalletHub</a></div>

Best-Run Cities in America

Overall Rank*	City	Quality of City Services Rank	Total Budget per Capita Rank
1	Provo, UT	5	2
2	Nampa, ID	41	1
3	Manchester, NH	32	3
4	Boise, ID	11	5
5	Nashua, NH	4	15
6	Dover, DE	73	4
7	Sioux Falls, SD	16	17
8	Lincoln, NE	18	19
9	Virginia Beach, VA	2	40
10	Fort Wayne, IN	47	12
11	Mesa, AZ	55	10
12	Oklahoma City, OK	62	9
13	Las Cruces, NM	76	6
14	Warwick, RI	33	30
15	Durham, NC	19	33
16	Missoula, MT	44	26
17	Chesapeake, VA	21	35
18	Tallahassee, FL	54	18
19	Jacksonville, FL	93	8
20	Columbus, GA	106	7
21	Raleigh, NC	13	51
22	Grand Rapids, MI	35	37
23	Lexington-Fayette, KY	64	28
24	Mobile, AL	94	14
25	Topeka, KS	95	16
26	Warren, MI	81	25
27	Rapid City, SD	89	23
28	Bismarck, ND	22	53
29	Lewiston, ME	90	24
30	Wichita, KS	111	13
31	Madison, WI	14	63
32	Eugene, OR	34	52
33	Cedar Rapids, IA	49	45
34	Huntington Beach, CA	1	89
35	Billings, MT	107	22
36	Portland, ME	10	70
37	Greensboro, NC	63	39
38	Lubbock, TX	104	29
39	Phoenix, AZ	52	50
40	Knoxville, TN	59	49
41	Albuquerque, NM	121	27
42	St. Petersburg, FL	25	73
43	Huntington, WV	97	38
44	Arlington, TX	71	47
45	Austin, TX	6	84
46	Worcester, MA	27	72
47	Corpus Christi, TX	109	36
48	Omaha, NE	66	55
49	Salem, OR	43	65
50	Louisville, KY	105	41
51	Charlotte, NC	36	74
52	Tulsa, OK	100	44
53	El Paso, TX	56	60
54	Bridgeport, CT	68	57
55	Fort Worth, TX	86	54
56	Indianapolis, IN	108	46
57	Tucson, AZ	113	43
58	Montgomery, AL	131	21
59	Colorado Springs, CO	65	62
60	Garland, TX	61	64
61	Gulfport, MS	123	32
62	Aurora, IL	31	83
63	Fargo, ND	48	76
64	San Antonio, TX	67	66
65	Reno, NV	50	79
66	Casper, WY	75	67
67	Baton Rouge, LA	138	20
68	Providence, RI	78	69
69	Anchorage, AK	103	61
70	Miami, FL	15	101
71	Hialeah, FL	38	94
72	Minneapolis, MN	39	96
73	Fairbanks, AK	115	58
74	Rutland, VT	101	71
75	Cheyenne, WY	80	82
76	Orlando, FL	29	104
77	St. Paul, MN	26	106
78	Frederick, MD	3	120
79	Fort Smith, AR	130	48
80	Little Rock, AR	134	42
81	Richmond, VA	69	90
82	Syracuse, NY	88	85
83	Des Moines, IA	53	98
84	Charleston, SC	12	114
85	Columbia, SC	85	86
86	Columbus, OH	79	91
87	Spokane, WA	82	92
88	Akron, OH	110	78
89	Las Vegas, NV	37	113
90	Fort Lauderdale, FL	46	111
91	Burlington, VT	72	99
92	Norfolk, VA	119	80
93	Fremont, CA	7	125
94	Memphis, TN	142	34
95	Dallas, TX	112	87
96	Aurora, CO	84	102
97	Tampa, FL	24	122
98	Kansas City, KS	139	56
99	Salt Lake City, UT	40	115
100	Boston, MA	9	130
101	New Haven, CT	126	81
102	Modesto, CA	98	103
103	Cincinnati, OH	70	110
104	Jackson, MS	146	11
105	Buffalo, NY	87	107
106	Nashville, TN	120	93
107	San Diego, CA	8	135
108	Yonkers, NY	30	127
109	Milwaukee, WI	133	75
110	Charleston, WV	116	100
111	Santa Ana, CA	45	123
112	Kansas City, MO	127	88
113	Houston, TX	114	105
114	Dayton, OH	122	97
115	Atlanta, GA	60	117
116	Toledo, OH	141	59
117	Portland, OR	28	134
118	Pittsburgh, PA	42	131
119	Springfield, MA	118	108
120	Gary, IN	147	31
121	Anaheim, CA	74	124
122	St. Louis, MO	143	68
123	Wilmington, DE	77	129
124	Rochester, NY	91	128
125	Hartford, CT	129	109
126	Sacramento, CA	92	133
127	San Jose, CA	20	142
128	Bakersfield, CA	124	119
129	Shreveport, LA	144	77
130	Riverside, CA	96	137
131	Seattle, WA	17	145
132	Birmingham, AL	135	116
133	Cleveland, OH	132	118
134	Denver, CO	83	141
135	New Orleans, LA	140	112
136	Chicago, IL	102	140
137	Flint, MI	145	95
138	Stockton, CA	137	121
139	Los Angeles, CA	58	143
140	Long Beach, CA	51	144
141	Fresno, CA	117	139
142	Tacoma, WA	125	136
143	Baltimore, MD	136	132
144	Philadelphia, PA	128	138
145	New York, NY	23	147
146	Oakland, CA	99	146
147	Detroit, MI	148	126
148	San Francisco, CA	57	148

Notes: *No. 1 = Best-Run
The columns in the table above depict the relative rank of that city, where a rank of 1 represents the highest quality of city services, and the smallest budget per capita, respectively.

Long-Term Debt Outstanding per Capita

Lowest

Lowest
1. Casper, WY
2. Nampa, ID
3. Rutland, VT
4. Boise, ID
5. Toledo, OH

Highest

Highest
144. New York, NY
145. Atlanta, GA
T-146. Salt Lake City, UT
T-146. Denver, CO
T-146. San Francisco, CA

High School Graduation Rate

Highest

Highest
1. Frederick, MD
2. Austin, TX
3. Lubbock, TX
T-4. Anaheim, CA
T-4. Huntington Beach, CA
T-4. Santa Ana, CA

Lowest

Lowest
144. Fairbanks, AK
145. Baltimore, MD
146. Montgomery, AL
147. Richmond, VA
148. San Francisco, CA

Infant Mortality Rate

Lowest

Lowest
1. San Francisco, CA
2. Yonkers, NY
3. San Jose, CA
4. Austin, TX
5. Worcester, MA

Highest

Highest
T-134. Gulfport, MS
T-134. Little Rock, AR
T-134. Billings, MT
T-134. Toledo, OH
T-134. Shreveport, LA
T-134. Columbus, GA

Violent Crime Rate

Lowest

Lowest
1. Warwick, RI
2. Virginia Beach, VA
3. Nashua, NH
4. Provo, UT
5. Hialeah, FL

Highest

Highest
T-142. Baltimore, MD
T-142. Cleveland, OH
T-142. Little Rock, AR
T-142. Detroit, MI
T-142. Memphis, TN
T-142. Oakland, CA

Unemployment Rate

Lowest

Lowest
T-1. Rapid City, SD
T-1. Burlington, VT
T-1. Sioux Falls, SD
T-1. Miami, FL
T-1. Madison, WI
T-1. Hialeah, FL

Highest

Highest
144. Stockton, CA
145. Toledo, OH
146. Gary, IN
147. Detroit, MI
148. Flint, MI

Median Annual Household Income (Cost of Living-Adjusted)

Highest

Highest
1. Fremont, CA
2. Chesapeake, VA
3. Virginia Beach, VA
4. Austin, TX
5. Charleston, SC

Lowest

Lowest
144. New York, NY
145. Hialeah, FL
146. Cleveland, OH
147. Detroit, MI
148. Gary, IN

% of Population in Poverty

Lowest

Lowest
1. Fremont, CA
T-2. Nashua, NH
T-2. Warwick, RI
4. Huntington Beach, CA
5. San Jose, CA

Highest

Highest
144. Syracuse, NY
145. Cleveland, OH
146. Detroit, MI
147. Gary, IN
148. Flint, MI

Quality of Roads

Highest

Highest
1. Montgomery, AL
2. Frederick, MD
3. Boise, ID
4. Tallahassee, FL
T-5. Minneapolis, MN
T-5. St. Paul, MN

Lowest

Lowest
T-126. Oakland, CA
T-126. San Francisco, CA
128. San Jose, CA
T-129. Anaheim, CA
T-129. Long Beach, CA
T-129. Los Angeles, CA

Air Pollution

Least

Least
1. Lubbock, TX
2. Anchorage, AK
3. Salem, OR
T-4. Lewiston, ME
T-4. Sioux Falls, SD

Most

Most
T-143. Anaheim, CA
T-143. Huntington Beach, CA
T-143. Long Beach, CA
T-143. Los Angeles, CA
T-143. Santa Ana, CA
148. Riverside, CA

In-Depth Look at the Best-Run Cities

Provo, UT

Provo, UT, is the best-run city, and the reasons for that are that the city is experiencing business growth of around 5.2%, alongside a high school graduation rate of nearly 91%, a combination that signals a strong foundation for the future.

Provo is also a city that is safe and keeps its infrastructure well-maintained. It has the fourth-lowest violent crime rate in the country, the seventh-lowest property crime rate, and the 22nd-best road quality in the country.

Finally, with median household income growing at nearly 8.4% and an impressively low unemployment rate of 2.8%, eighth-lowest in the U.S., Provo’s economic momentum is hard to ignore.

Nampa, ID

Nampa, ID, is the second-best-run city in America, and one reason for that is that its government debt level is extremely low. The city’s long-term outstanding debt per capita is just $478 – compare that to the top cities where the number is in the $23k-$33k range.

Nampa is also a safe city, with the lowest property-crime rate and the 25th-lowest violent crime rate in the country.

To top things off, Nampa does very well economically. It has the 19th-highest median annual income growth in the country, at over 7%. It’s also among the top cities when it comes to growth in the number of businesses and has the 13th lowest poverty rate in the country.

Manchester, NH

Manchester, NH, is the third-best-run city, and one way that shows it is in how clean the environment is with the seventh-lowest air pollution. Its residents are also doing very well financially. For example, the city has the seventh-highest forecasted 1-year change in the median home value, and a low share of residents living below poverty.

In addition, Manchester is a safe city, with the 15th-lowest property crime rate and 28th-lowest violent crime rate in the country. It also has the seventh-smallest traffic congestion, and the 15th-lowest unemployment rate in the country.

Detailed Breakdown by City

Quality of City Services* (Score)	City	Financial Stability Rank	Education Rank	Health Rank	Safety Rank	Economy Rank	Infrastructure & Pollution Rank
1 (70.80)	Huntington Beach, CA	80	1	10	12	35	46
2 (67.79)	Virginia Beach, VA	9	4	59	8	12	105
3 (67.55)	Frederick, MD	36	8	15	24	9	10
4 (67.44)	Nashua, NH	22	37	47	2	4	50
5 (65.93)	Provo, UT	31	29	35	3	84	23
6 (64.54)	Austin, TX	28	10	11	59	63	36
7 (64.19)	Fremont, CA	129	3	6	30	53	96
8 (64.06)	San Diego, CA	94	6	14	28	47	34
9 (63.91)	Boston, MA	4	129	12	19	114	12
10 (63.90)	Portland, ME	15	90	75	10	5	9
11 (63.68)	Boise, ID	45	56	32	6	16	68
12 (63.66)	Charleston, SC	21	15	63	51	2	71
13 (62.92)	Raleigh, NC	10	51	21	35	21	98
14 (62.92)	Madison, WI	12	73	30	16	85	70
15 (62.49)	Miami, FL	86	7	17	65	23	20
16 (62.34)	Sioux Falls, SD	23	75	46	29	7	63
17 (62.19)	Seattle, WA	24	11	13	94	60	41
18 (61.87)	Lincoln, NE	3	105	20	21	58	123
19 (61.75)	Durham, NC	2	14	22	77	11	140
20 (61.65)	San Jose, CA	53	26	1	42	83	124
21 (61.59)	Chesapeake, VA	8	9	111	22	56	133
22 (61.45)	Bismarck, ND	25	93	26	20	93	61
23 (61.12)	New York, NY	77	21	16	31	136	24
24 (61.07)	Tampa, FL	30	40	85	38	22	39
25 (60.87)	St. Petersburg, FL	64	22	48	50	37	40
26 (60.17)	St. Paul, MN	34	126	58	41	81	1
27 (60.13)	Worcester, MA	98	80	19	18	20	80
28 (60.05)	Portland, OR	18	5	28	124	125	8
29 (59.91)	Orlando, FL	38	28	29	103	39	28
30 (59.83)	Yonkers, NY	135	67	3	4	101	44
31 (59.69)	Aurora, IL	105	23	36	7	74	114
32 (59.56)	Manchester, NH	95	116	43	15	8	37
33 (59.56)	Warwick, RI	110	74	67	1	31	116
34 (59.39)	Eugene, OR	33	43	66	46	115	48
35 (59.00)	Grand Rapids, MI	58	53	37	67	66	7
36 (58.92)	Charlotte, NC	14	48	54	75	18	119
37 (58.78)	Las Vegas, NV	75	61	77	32	62	15
38 (58.64)	Hialeah, FL	127	13	33	14	29	141
39 (58.46)	Minneapolis, MN	11	128	27	120	80	2
40 (58.41)	Salt Lake City, UT	49	24	25	121	41	16
41 (58.21)	Nampa, ID	83	140	84	5	1	93
42 (58.10)	Pittsburgh, PA	126	16	52	40	52	25
43 (57.91)	Salem, OR	61	64	41	47	70	99
44 (57.82)	Missoula, MT	122	25	53	58	3	62
45 (57.81)	Santa Ana, CA	107	27	8	37	67	118
46 (57.77)	Fort Lauderdale, FL	43	32	31	111	40	57
47 (57.77)	Fort Wayne, IN	20	63	113	17	45	127
48 (57.36)	Fargo, ND	84	92	34	36	91	43
49 (57.25)	Cedar Rapids, IA	35	89	69	45	96	83
50 (57.08)	Reno, NV	100	19	73	34	26	121
51 (56.33)	Long Beach, CA	119	12	18	64	94	112
52 (56.07)	Phoenix, AZ	39	99	72	92	17	52
53 (55.64)	Des Moines, IA	65	114	39	61	108	60
54 (55.60)	Tallahassee, FL	69	42	112	66	78	21
55 (55.52)	Mesa, AZ	67	82	74	33	19	137
56 (55.51)	El Paso, TX	116	18	88	27	49	115
57 (55.31)	San Francisco, CA	89	137	2	102	135	13
58 (55.29)	Los Angeles, CA	102	38	24	76	129	74
59 (55.27)	Knoxville, TN	37	41	76	133	34	47
60 (54.96)	Atlanta, GA	85	85	68	106	6	32
61 (54.93)	Garland, TX	117	34	80	26	33	147
62 (54.75)	Oklahoma City, OK	7	108	107	72	38	128
63 (54.54)	Greensboro, NC	6	30	129	88	61	129
64 (54.50)	Lexington-Fayette, KY	57	39	104	43	97	130
65 (54.41)	Colorado Springs, CO	78	59	70	71	54	117
66 (54.27)	Omaha, NE	82	71	100	49	59	104
67 (54.19)	San Antonio, TX	27	49	94	110	99	75
68 (54.15)	Bridgeport, CT	140	102	9	13	104	73
69 (53.82)	Richmond, VA	41	145	92	62	51	77
70 (53.76)	Cincinnati, OH	73	81	78	91	119	33
71 (53.39)	Arlington, TX	55	55	96	48	112	142
72 (53.34)	Burlington, VT	96	122	4	117	98	14
73 (53.29)	Dover, DE	88	58	103	99	14	56
74 (53.29)	Anaheim, CA	142	20	7	52	100	125
75 (53.26)	Casper, WY	1	130	116	25	43	78
76 (53.23)	Las Cruces, NM	54	86	83	118	30	90
77 (53.20)	Wilmington, DE	70	50	61	113	132	11
78 (53.15)	Providence, RI	138	138	42	11	27	49
79 (53.13)	Columbus, OH	74	106	110	39	105	88
80 (53.05)	Cheyenne, WY	17	107	89	44	46	72
81 (53.03)	Warren, MI	60	79	97	23	128	42
82 (53.01)	Spokane, WA	72	52	71	105	79	106
83 (52.80)	Denver, CO	49	91	50	131	90	69
84 (52.75)	Aurora, CO	40	100	23	114	76	145
85 (52.68)	Columbia, SC	42	131	87	97	75	58
86 (52.65)	Fort Worth, TX	106	65	65	54	42	144
87 (52.62)	Buffalo, NY	112	103	55	78	122	31
88 (52.53)	Syracuse, NY	115	115	40	85	113	4
89 (52.49)	Rapid City, SD	46	134	120	63	15	100
90 (52.42)	Lewiston, ME	92	132	140	9	50	59
91 (52.40)	Rochester, NY	109	83	82	95	72	3
92 (52.39)	Sacramento, CA	120	76	44	87	65	97
93 (52.23)	Jacksonville, FL	68	72	128	90	57	45
94 (52.09)	Mobile, AL	56	35	124	107	111	29
95 (51.81)	Topeka, KS	99	94	102	89	68	5
96 (51.71)	Riverside, CA	131	47	51	68	28	139
97 (51.59)	Huntington, WV	13	78	131	82	13	30
98 (51.41)	Modesto, CA	125	66	98	55	86	89
99 (51.06)	Oakland, CA	97	60	5	141	123	94
100 (50.98)	Tulsa, OK	26	96	101	125	82	110
101 (50.97)	Rutland, VT	5	142	62	81	36	19
102 (50.94)	Chicago, IL	148	2	60	53	120	26
103 (50.91)	Anchorage, AK	51	44	109	70	73	81
104 (50.77)	Lubbock, TX	79	17	115	93	110	136
105 (50.72)	Louisville, KY	44	98	105	109	118	82
106 (50.67)	Columbus, GA	48	54	148	60	77	65
107 (50.16)	Billings, MT	52	69	142	96	24	108
108 (50.16)	Indianapolis, IN	16	127	135	108	69	92
109 (50.08)	Corpus Christi, TX	81	31	122	86	117	134
110 (49.93)	Akron, OH	90	95	108	83	134	67
111 (49.92)	Wichita, KS	62	101	99	122	71	109
112 (49.73)	Dallas, TX	134	36	56	101	106	107
113 (49.70)	Tucson, AZ	91	110	49	134	87	103
114 (49.56)	Houston, TX	108	46	64	128	116	101
115 (49.31)	Fairbanks, AK	19	141	57	84	48	86
116 (49.26)	Charleston, WV	137	33	134	69	10	38
117 (48.87)	Fresno, CA	121	57	93	80	102	138
118 (48.66)	Springfield, MA	130	109	79	79	130	54
119 (48.06)	Norfolk, VA	87	123	143	56	103	111
120 (47.93)	Nashville, TN	101	113	106	130	44	95
121 (47.88)	Albuquerque, NM	93	104	95	139	32	79
122 (47.19)	Dayton, OH	47	97	125	126	142	35
123 (46.20)	Gulfport, MS	133	70	137	74	25	113
124 (46.17)	Bakersfield, CA	113	77	117	104	64	146
125 (45.80)	Tacoma, WA	103	87	86	145	55	85
126 (45.71)	New Haven, CT	143	120	38	73	141	27
127 (45.57)	Kansas City, MO	111	62	91	142	89	102
128 (44.89)	Philadelphia, PA	124	139	118	116	127	55
129 (44.82)	Hartford, CT	147	111	45	57	109	6
130 (43.83)	Fort Smith, AR	71	68	130	129	92	66
131 (43.78)	Montgomery, AL	118	124	144	100	133	22
132 (43.45)	Cleveland, OH	104	135	114	136	121	84
133 (43.34)	Milwaukee, WI	139	118	90	119	139	76
134 (43.24)	Little Rock, AR	29	117	132	147	95	91
135 (43.13)	Birmingham, AL	114	45	121	146	138	53
136 (42.46)	Baltimore, MD	76	146	147	127	137	87
137 (42.05)	Stockton, CA	141	84	81	115	107	148
138 (41.38)	Baton Rouge, LA	63	112	123	138	145	135
139 (41.10)	Kansas City, KS	123	148	119	123	88	64
140 (39.85)	New Orleans, LA	132	136	133	137	143	18
141 (38.72)	Toledo, OH	128	143	146	98	144	126
142 (38.19)	Memphis, TN	59	121	139	148	124	132
143 (37.41)	St. Louis, MO	136	147	145	144	126	17
144 (35.07)	Shreveport, LA	144	88	141	112	140	122
145 (34.87)	Flint, MI	32	144	138	132	147	51
146 (31.76)	Jackson, MS	146	119	126	140	131	131
147 (30.98)	Gary, IN	66	125	127	135	148	143
148 (28.19)	Detroit, MI	145	133	136	143	146	120

Notes: *No. 1 = Best-Run
With the exception of “Quality of City Services” score, all of the columns in the table above depict the relative rank of that city, where a rank of 1 represents the best conditions for that metric category.

Ask the Experts

A well-run city isn’t just the product of efficient budgeting or lots of resources. It is the fruit of countless other decisions, too. For more insight into why some cities perform better than others, we turned to a panel of local-government, economic and diversity experts. Click on the panelists’ profiles to read their bios and thoughts on the following key questions:

In your opinion, what are the most important issues facing U.S. cities today?
What can citizens do to increase the transparency and accountability of local government?
In evaluating how well a city is run, what are the top 5 indicators?
What are the areas that need improvement when it comes to cities’ emergency preparedness and response?
How can local policymakers reduce racial tensions in the wake of recent movements?

Ask the Experts

Luke Fowler
Professor, School of Public Service - Boise State University
Read More

John L. Campbell
Class of 1925 Professor Emeritus, Department of Sociology - Dartmouth College
Read More

Chad R. Miller
Ph.D., Professor of Economic Development, Master of Science of Economic Development Program, College of Business & Economic Development - University of Southern Mississippi
Read More

Don Vaughan
Adjunct Professor of Law and Attorney and Counselor at Law, Donald R. Vaughan and Associates - Wake Forest University - School of Law
Read More

Ronald O. Loveridge
University of California, Riverside Political Science Department (1965-); Mayor of Riverside (1994-2012); President of California League of Cities (2004) and National League of Cities (2010); Fellow in the National Academy of Public Administration (2010)
Read More

Cleopatra Charles
Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs and Administration – Rutgers University
Read More

More Experts

Methodology

In order to determine the best- and worst-run cities in America, WalletHub compared 148 of the most populated cities across six key categories: 1) Financial Stability, 2) Education, 3) Health, 4) Safety, 5) Economy and 6) Infrastructure & Pollution.

We evaluated those dimensions using 36 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest quality of service.

Next, we calculated an overall “Quality of City Services” score for each city based on its weighted average across all the metrics. Finally, for each city, we divided the “Quality of City Services” score by the “Total Budget per Capita” (dollar amount) in order to construct a “Score per Dollar Spent” index — displayed as “Overall Rank” in the Main Findings table above — which we then used to rank-order the cities in our sample.

Financial Stability – Total Points: 16.67

Moody’s City Credit Rating: Quadruple Weight (~13.33 Points)
Outstanding Long-Term Debt per Capita: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)

Education – Total Points: 16.67

K–12 School-System Quality: Double Weight (~11.11 Points)
Note: This metric measures the share of public schools rated by GreatSchools.org with above average score.
High School Graduation Rate: Full Weight (~5.56 Points)

Health – Total Points: 16.67

Infant Mortality Rate: Quadruple Weight (~6.67 Points)
Average Life Expectancy (in Years): Quadruple Weight (~6.67 Points)
Hospital Beds per Capita: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
Quality of Public Hospital System: Full Weight (~1.67 Points)
Note: This metric is based on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ ranking of public hospital systems.

Safety – Total Points: 16.67

Violent Crime Rate: Quadruple Weight (~4.76 Points)
Property Crime Rate: Quadruple Weight (~4.76 Points)
Motor Vehicle Fatalities per Capita: Quadruple Weight (~4.76 Points)
Share of Sheltered Homeless Persons: Full Weight (~1.19 Points)
Perception of Safety (Safety walking alone during daylight/night): Full Weight (~1.19 Points)
Note: These data are based on perceptions of visitors of numbeo.com website in the past 3 years.
If the value is 0, it means it is perceived as very low, and if the value is 100, it means it is perceived as very high.

Economy – Total Points: 16.67

Unemployment Rate: Triple Weight (~3.13 Points)
Underemployment Rate: Full Weight (~1.04 Points)
Median Annual Household Income (Adjusted for Cost of Living): Double Weight (~2.08 Points)
Median Annual Income Growth Rate: Double Weight (~2.08 Points)
Note: Growth compares the income level in 2023 versus in 2022.
Annual Job Growth Rate (Adjusted for Population Growth): Double Weight (~2.08 Points)
Note: Growth compares the number of employed civilian population in 2025 versus in 2024.
Share of Population Living in Poverty: Double Weight (~2.08 Points)
Growth in Number of Businesses: Full Weight (~1.04 Points)
Note: Growth compares the number of businesses in 2022 versus in 2021.
Change in Housing Prices: Full Weight (~1.04 Points)
Note: Change compares the price in 2024 versus in 2020.
Zillow Home Value 1-year Forecast: Full Weight (~1.04 Points)
Note: The Zillow Home Value Forecast is Zillow's prediction of what the Zillow Home Value Index will be one year from now.
Building-Permit Growth: Full Weight (~1.04 Points)
Note: Growth spans 2021 to 2023.

Infrastructure & Pollution – Total Points: 16.67

Quality of Roads: Quadruple Weight (~3.03 Points)
Note: This metric measures the share of major roads in poor and mediocre condition.
Average Commute Time (in Minutes): Full Weight (~0.76 Points)
Transit Access Shed: Full Weight (~0.76 Points)
Note: “Transit Access Shed” is the total area of land that is easily accessible from any point via public transportation.
Traffic Congestion: Full Weight (~0.76 Points)
Walk Score: Triple Weight (~2.27 Points)
Note: “Walk Score” measures pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics such as block length and intersection density.
Bike Score: Full Weight (~0.76 Points)
Note: “Bike Score” measures whether an area is good for biking. The Bike Score is calculated by measuring bike infrastructure (lanes, trails, etc.), hills, destinations and road connectivity, and the number of bike commuters.
Transit Score: Half Weight (~0.38 Points)
Note: “Transit Score” is a patented measure of how well a location is served by public transit.
Recreation-Friendliness: Quadruple Weight (~3.03 Points)
Note: This metric is based on WalletHub’s “Best & Worst Cities for Recreation” ranking.
Share of Residents with Access to Internet: Half Weight (~0.38 Points)
Water Quality: Full Weight (~0.76 Points)
Air Pollution: Full Weight (~0.76 Points)
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions per Capita: Full Weight (~0.76 Points)
Share of Parkland: Triple Weight (~2.27 Points)

Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected as of April 28, 2025 from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Council for Community and Economic Research, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Moody's Investors Service, GreatSchools.org, County Health Rankings, Health Resources and Services Administration, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Chmura Economics & Analytics, Zillow, The Road Information Program, Center for Neighborhood Technology, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Walk Score, The Trust for Public Land, INRIX, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, Numbeo and WalletHub research.

Supporting Video Files:

Questions & Answers(13 questions)

Editorial and user-generated content on this page is not reviewed or otherwise endorsed by any financial institution. Please keep in mind that it is not a financial institution’s responsibility to ensure all posts and questions are answered.

Upvote

Where is the complete report?

Upvotes

Huntsville is the largest city in Alabama. Bigger than Birmingham, Mobile and Montgomery (all listed). So why was it not listed??

Upvotes

How did mayor/council-run cities compare with council/manager-run cities?

Upvotes

Why do these lists always compare global cities with global challenges (NYC and SF) against small towns?

Upvotes

Would Flint, Michigan's deadly water really only lower it's infrastructure score by a tiny percentage? What jobs of joke is this?

Upvotes

What was the population cutoff for the cities in the survey

Upvotes

Please share how the road condition data is determined. If it comes from TRIP, they appear to report only on state highway conditions.

Upvotes

No New Jersey Cities?

Upvotes

Miami has a higher violent crime rate and the same percentage of homelessness. SoWhere is it?

Upvotes

The report states that these are the largest cities. There are larger cities than #1 Nampa ID missing from the list of the 149. Why?

Was this article helpful?

Expert Commentary

WalletHub experts are widely quoted. Contact our media team to schedule an interview.

Important Disclosures

Ad Disclosure: Certain offers that appear on this site originate from paying advertisers. For full transparency, here is a list of our current advertisers.

Advertising impacts how and where offers appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear and their prevalence). At WalletHub we try to present a wide array of offers, but our offers do not represent all financial services companies or products.

Advertising enables WalletHub to provide you proprietary tools, services, and content at no charge. Advertising does not impact WalletHub's editorial content including our best picks, reviews, ratings and opinions. Those are completely independent and not provided, commissioned, or endorsed by any company, as our editors follow a strict editorial policy.

WalletHub is not a financial advisor. Our goal is to provide you with top-notch content, data, and tools. You are responsible for deciding what financial products and providers are best for your needs.

Irrespective of whether an institution or professional is a paid advertiser, the presence of information on WalletHub does not constitute a referral or endorsement of the institution or professional by us or vice versa.

We work hard to show you up-to-date product terms, however, this information does not originate from us and thus, we do not guarantee its accuracy. Actual terms may vary. Before submitting an application, always verify all terms and conditions with the offering institution. Please let us know if you notice any differences.