Skip to main content
ZipVitals

How Massachusetts's ZIP codes measure up on health

The ZipVitals Score across Massachusetts — built one ZIP code at a time, then rolled up to the state by resident population.

Data release 2026527 of 532 ZIP codes scored · 7.0M residents represented

Score snapshot

58.33Statewide ZipVitals Scorepopulation-weighted average of its ZIP codes
60.63Median scoremiddle of 527 scored ZIPs
75.48Highest score02468 · Waban
24.44Lowest score01105 · Springfield
51.04Spreadpoints between highest & lowest ZIP

People & national context

#7State rankof 51 states and equivalents with a computed score
28%Residents in below-average ZIPs2.0M of 7.0M, in ZIPs scoring under the national average (53.48)
0.64MResidents in the top 50 ZIPs9% of the state
1.2MResidents in the bottom 50 ZIPs17% of the state
3ZIPs in the national top 100led by 02468 · Waban

Massachusetts's ZIP codes, ranked

Highest-scoring

Top 50 of 527
  1. 102468in Waban · 5,773 residents75.48
  2. 202420in Lexington · 16,215 residents74.72
  3. 302421in Lexington · 18,080 residents74.06
  4. 402030in Dover · 5,930 residents73.51
  5. 502459in Newton Center · 18,449 residents73.41
  6. 602481in Wellesley Hills · 17,415 residents73.39
  7. 702461in Newton Highlands · 6,975 residents73.14
  8. 801776in Sudbury · 19,270 residents72.83
  9. 901741in Carlisle · 5,239 residents72.69
  10. 1002492in Needham · 21,424 residents72.42
  11. 1101944in Manchester · 5,403 residents72.41
  12. 1202478in Belmont · 27,175 residents72.21
  13. 1302445in Brookline · 22,560 residents72.20
  14. 1402210in Boston · 6,971 residents72.12
  15. 1501770in Sherborn · 4,427 residents72.06
  16. 1602494in Needham Heights · 11,035 residents72.04
  17. 1701778in Wayland · 14,033 residents71.68
  18. 1802067in Sharon · 18,538 residents71.60
  19. 1902493in Weston · 11,579 residents71.46
  20. 2002465in West Newton · 11,697 residents71.35
  21. 2101945in Marblehead · 20,470 residents71.31
  22. 2202464in Newton Upper Falls · 3,833 residents71.22
  23. 2302482in Wellesley · 11,051 residents70.97
  24. 2401720in Acton · 23,526 residents70.94
  25. 2502467in Chestnut Hill · 23,001 residents70.75
  26. 2602446in Brookline · 31,310 residents70.72
  27. 2701886in Westford · 24,690 residents70.65
  28. 2802460in Newtonville · 10,099 residents70.62
  29. 2902025in Cohasset · 8,427 residents70.54
  30. 3001890in Winchester · 23,406 residents70.51
  31. 3101745in Fayville · 586 residents70.48
  32. 3202474in Arlington · 28,642 residents70.26
  33. 3302476in Arlington · 17,708 residents70.23
  34. 3402108in Boston · 3,794 residents70.22
  35. 3501719in Boxborough · 5,496 residents70.17
  36. 3602114in Boston · 14,418 residents70.08
  37. 3702113in Boston · 6,385 residents70.03
  38. 3801748in Hopkinton · 19,358 residents70.03
  39. 3901718in Acton · 404 residents70.00
  40. 4002458in Newton · 13,050 residents69.97
  41. 4102052in Medfield · 13,068 residents69.92
  42. 4202110in Boston · 2,342 residents69.87
  43. 4302199in Boston · 1,292 residents69.86
  44. 4401775in Stow · 7,165 residents69.74
  45. 4501742in Concord · 18,448 residents69.63
  46. 4601035in Hadley · 5,306 residents69.62
  47. 4701773in Lincoln · 4,891 residents69.59
  48. 4802543in Woods Hole · 747 residents69.56
  49. 4901740in Bolton · 5,737 residents69.48
  50. 5002140in Cambridge · 21,204 residents69.25
Open the full Massachusetts ranking →One page, all 527 scored ZIPs — sortable by score, residents, or place

What the distribution shows

Across Massachusetts’s 532 ZIP codes, the ZipVitals Score spans a wide range. 527 of them carry enough measured coverage across all nine health domains to enter the population-weighted composite above; the rest are held out rather than filled from a coarser geography.

Assembled from the same ZIP-level data as every per-ZIP page. Read the full method →

Where Massachusetts stands, domain by domain

The ZipVitals Score above combines nine domains of health into one number. This is where Massachusetts's ZIP codes sit against ZIP codes across the country on each of them, weighted by how many residents live in each one — strongest at the top.

Strongest domain

Preventive Care · 81st

Weighted by residents, this state’s ZIP codes sit around the 81st percentile of US ZIP codes here — its highest of the nine scoring domains.

Weakest domain

Environmental Hazard · 34th

Weighted by residents, this state’s ZIP codes sit around the 34th percentile of US ZIP codes here — its lowest of the nine scoring domains.

Preventive Care81
Healthcare Access75
Chronic Disease Burden73
Disability71
Risk Behavior67
Climate / Disaster Risk62
Social Need / SDOH59
Mental Health46
Environmental Hazard34

Read each bar as a national percentile from 0 to 100. The dark line marks the national median: a bar past it means Massachusetts's ZIP codes typically place above most ZIP codes in the country on that domain. A domain Massachusetts cannot place honestly is shown greyed as "Not enough data" rather than given a number.

Each figure is the population-weighted average of this state's ZIP codes' standing on that domain, compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes. A ZIP code counts toward a domain only if it carries enough measured data on it and enough of Massachusetts's residents live in the ZIP codes that do; the rest are held out rather than filled in from a coarser geography. Read the full method →

Why this matters

The ZipVitals Score combines nine domains of health — from chronic disease and preventive care to environmental hazard, social need, and healthcare access — into one 0–100 index for each ZIP code, computed the same way everywhere from public federal and academic data. The Massachusetts figures on this page are population-weighted rollups of those per-ZIP scores, so they describe Massachusetts's residents rather than a coarser geography relabeled as the state.

A high score describes favorable documented conditions; it is not a claim about individual residents, and it does not capture everything that shapes a community's health. Where a ZIP code scores low, that pattern reflects structural conditions — investment, environment, and access — far more than the choices of the people who live there.