ZIP code
53149
in Mukwonago, WisconsinPopulation 19,614
63.11/ 100
Ranked #2,905 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 9.1%)
Ranked #44 of 763 Wisconsin ZIPs (top 5.8%)
Ranked #23 of 80 Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI ZIPs (top 29%)
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.
Binge drinking
21.6%
in the top 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report binge drinking — five or more drinks on one occasion for men, four or more for women.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.8%
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Mammography
83.2%
in the top 2.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›Lack of transportation
4.7%
in the bottom 5.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who lacked reliable transportation in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
7.5%
in the bottom 5.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Housing insecurity
6.8%
in the bottom 6.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST8thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced housing insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 9.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST83rdUS91stDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›Colon-cancer screening
73%
in the top 7.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST86thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
0.81 per 1,000 residents
in the top 10.5% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST93rdUS90thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices located 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 ›Cognitive disability
10.8%
in the bottom 8.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS9thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›The read
Mukwonago, Wisconsin (ZIP 53149), by its composite score, sits in the top 9.1% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,905th) and the top 5.8% of Wisconsin (44th).
The measures land in both directions, and neither dominates: modeled utility shutoff registers in the bottom 2.8% nationally, and mammography settles in the top 2.1% nationally. Modeled transportation sits in the bottom 5.1% nationally, and food insecurity lies in the bottom 5.4% nationally. Modeled housing insecurity rests in the bottom 6.0% nationally, modeled colon screening resides in the top 7.3% nationally, and dental providers is in the top 10.5% nationally. Modeled cognitive disability lands in the bottom 8.9% nationally. Pulling the other way, modeled binge drinking stands in the top 2.3% nationally, and expected annual loss registers in the top 9.5% nationally.
Next to the surrounding area, park land runs far lower than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For anyone unfamiliar, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 53103, just across the boundary. The area further 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 Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI 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 77%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 68%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 93%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 84%
8%
Disability
healthier than 88%
7%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 59%
11%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 57%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 41%
5%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 85%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 70%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 88%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 78%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 91%
8%
Disability
healthier than 92%
7%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 23%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 67%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 69%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 90%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 64%
13%
Mental Health
healthier than 67%
8%
Disability
healthier than 65%
7%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 46%
11%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 21%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 24%
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
53103
Wisconsinshares a border
Score 64.01
Closest healthier
53153
Wisconsinshares a border
Score 65.16
Similar health profile
50643
Iowa99% similar profile
Score 61.30
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 | 26.7% | 24.4–29.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 33.2% | 30.5–36.1 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 9.4% | 8.7–10.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.6% | 9.6–11.8 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.9% | 5.4–6.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.3% | 4.7–5.9 |
| Depression among adults | 21.3% | 18.9–24.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.2% | 9.0–11.5 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 35.4% | 32.6–38.4 |
| Obesity among adults | 34.7% | 30.7–38.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.9% | 2.7–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.8% | 5.7–8.5 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.5% | 4.6–6.5 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 77.9% | 75.4–80.4 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.1% | 76.6–81.7 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.8% | 87.4–90.1 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 73.0% | 70.2–76.7 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 73.2% | 71.1–76.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 83.2% | 79.4–87.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 21.6% | 19.0–24.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.3% | 9.7–13.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 20.9% | 18.4–23.8 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.9% | 28.8–36.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.9% | 12.3–15.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 13.7% | 12.2–15.3 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 11.9% | 10.6–13.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 10.8% | 9.6–12.2 |
| Any disability among adults | 26.1% | 23.4–29.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 6.2% | 5.6–7.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 6.3% | 5.6–7.0 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 11.3% | 10.0–12.8 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.8% | 2.5–3.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.3% | 3.0–3.6 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 16.7% | 14.4–19.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 7.5% | 6.3–8.8 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 5.9–8.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 6.8% | 5.8–7.9 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.7% | 4.1–5.3 |
| Loneliness among adults | 28.9% | 25.7–32.4 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.8% | 3.3–4.5 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | WI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 3.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 8.5% (3.6–16.0%) n=765 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 4.5% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.7% (2.4–14.9%) n=764 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 2.3% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 5.9% (2.3–12.6%) n=768 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 38.7% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 23.5% (12.7–44.0%) n=768 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.8% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 2.6% (0.9–5.6%) n=763 |
| Households without a vehicle | 2.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.6% (0.8–9.0%) n=764 |
| Broadband subscription | 93.7% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 88.8% (80.0–94.8%) n=764 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 17.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.8% (14.7–29.1%) n=764 |
| Homeownership rate | 85.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 81.3% (62.1–91.8%) n=764 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.1% (0.0–3.7%) n=764 |
| Foreign-born population | 3.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.9% (0.3–6.8%) n=768 |
| Single-parent households | 53.2% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 59.0% (47.7–72.8%) n=762 |
| Population 65+ | 17.9% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.4% (13.9–32.2%) n=768 |
| Median age | 42.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 44.2 yr (36.2–56.1) n=765 |
| Median household income | $110,608 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $75,147 ($57,542–$101,625) n=755 |
| Median home value | $414,200 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $231,900 ($160,140–$367,300) n=755 |
| Median gross rent | $1,167 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $914 ($696–$1,261) n=706 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | WI median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 81.3 yr ± 0.88 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.4 yr (77.7–83.6) n=712 |
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 0.88 years of 81.3, 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