ZIP code
28757
in Montreat, North CarolinaPopulation 630
65.09/ 100
Ranked #1,972 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 6.2%)
Ranked #40 of 793 North Carolina ZIPs (top 5.1%)
Ranked #1 of 29 Asheville, NC ZIPs (top 3.5%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Transit access
34 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.10% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Short sleep
23.2%
in the bottom 0.07% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
80.3%
in the top 0.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Obesity
23.5%
in the bottom 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Poverty rate
0.00%
at the national minimum
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of residents whose income is below the federal poverty line, from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Home broadband subscription
100%
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with a broadband internet subscription.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.8%
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
71.8%
in the top 3.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
6.4%
in the bottom 4.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›The read
In its overall standing, Montreat, North Carolina (ZIP 28757) lands in the top 6.2% healthiest ZIPs nationally (1,972nd) and the top 5.1% of North Carolina (40th).
Taken together, the data gives a genuinely mixed reading: transit resides in the top 0.10% nationally, modeled short sleep settles in the bottom 0.07% nationally, and modeled colon screening is in the top 0.2% nationally. Modeled obesity sits in the bottom 3.6% nationally, poverty lands at the national minimum, and homeownership lies at the national maximum. Home broadband subscription stands at the national maximum, and modeled utility shutoff rests in the bottom 2.8% nationally. Modeled housing insecurity registers in the bottom 4.0% nationally. On the other side, modeled pfas resides in the top 3.9% nationally.
Against the wider neighborhood, transit runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put simply, pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. No nearby ZIP ranks healthier overall than this one. In the round, the area also sits on the healthier half of the national range on at least seven of the ten good-life measures tracked here, from quiet and green space to nearby care, a combination reached by about one in twenty-five US ZIP codes.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts. Compare it against the US, this state and the Asheville, NC metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 92%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 86%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 99%
11%
Disability
healthier than 79%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 82%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 44%
8%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 16%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 38%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 95%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 90%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 82%
13%
Risk Behavior
in the top 0.7%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 63%
8%
Disability
healthier than 89%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 96%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 6%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 24%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
in the top 0.00%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 82%
16%
Risk Behavior
in the top 0.00%
11%
Disability
healthier than 96%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 57%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 43%
8%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 14%
14%
Healthcare Access
in the bottom 0.00%
5%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
28711
North Carolinashares a border
Score 60.12
Similar health profile
22812
Virginia97% similar profile
Score 58.48
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 21.5% | 19.2–23.8 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 28.3% | 25.2–31.4 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.6% | 7.8–9.5 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.0% | 8.7–11.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.9% | 5.2–6.8 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.4% | 4.3–6.6 |
| Depression among adults | 24.7% | 21.0–28.5 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 7.9% | 6.7–9.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 30.0% | 26.5–33.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 23.5% | 18.3–29.1 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.8% | 2.4–3.2 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.6% | 6.9–10.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 7.9% | 5.2–11.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 75.6% | 73.4–77.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 76.9% | 73.1–80.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.4% | 77.7–86.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 80.3% | 76.6–83.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 76.8% | 74.1–79.4 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 82.2% | 76.5–87.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 16.9% | 14.0–20.0 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 7.2% | 5.3–9.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 16.3% | 12.4–20.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 23.2% | 19.1–27.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.4% | 10.5–17.1 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.3% | 13.2–19.6 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 9.8% | 8.1–11.7 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.7% | 11.2–19.3 |
| Any disability among adults | 29.8% | 24.4–36.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 7.5% | 6.5–8.5 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.0% | 5.4–9.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 10.3% | 8.5–12.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.4% | 2.0–2.9 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.8% | 3.1–4.7 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 20.0% | 15.8–24.6 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.1% | 6.1–13.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 5.6% | 3.7–8.1 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.4% | 4.6–8.7 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 6.5% | 4.7–8.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 34.7% | 29.0–40.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.8% | 2.9–4.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 0.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 13.0% (4.4–25.0%) n=793 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 3.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 14.5% (5.7–24.9%) n=794 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 10.4% (3.1–19.8%) n=798 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 91.5% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 22.8% (10.7–53.4%) n=798 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 9.6% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.1%) n=796 |
| Households without a vehicle | 0.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–10.2%) n=793 |
| Broadband subscription | 100.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 87.6% (76.2–96.3%) n=793 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 17.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 24.7% (14.1–36.5%) n=793 |
| Homeownership rate | 100.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (52.7–89.7%) n=793 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.4% (0.0–4.5%) n=793 |
| Foreign-born population | 1.3% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.2% (0.0–12.9%) n=799 |
| Single-parent households | 46.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 51.8% (39.2–70.1%) n=790 |
| Population 65+ | 2.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.7% (11.1–31.9%) n=799 |
| Median age | 19.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.5 yr (33.3–55.7) n=797 |
| Median household income | $115,568 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $65,030 ($44,419–$97,111) n=749 |
| Median home value | $606,400 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $223,850 ($113,970–$452,990) n=758 |
| Median gross rent | — | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $957 ($715–$1,575) n=687 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NC median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 81.1 yr ± 1.56 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 77.3 yr (74.6–80.8) n=747 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 1.56 years of 81.1, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured