ZIP code
78613
in Cedar Park, TexasPopulation 89,956
63.98/ 100
Ranked #2,455 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 7.7%)
Ranked #78 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (top 4.2%)
Ranked #24 of 89 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX ZIPs (top 27%)
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.
Subsidized affordable housing
828 units
in the top 2.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Dry extreme heat
88.2 days/year
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST65thUS96thDefinition & source ›
The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 3.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Coronary heart disease
4.1%
in the bottom 3.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS4thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Stroke
2.2%
in the bottom 3.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST6thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
1.3%
in the bottom 3.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of household income spent on home energy bills — electricity, gas, and heating fuels.
A modeled share of household income spent on home energy. Estimates that hit the model’s 100% ceiling are suppressed rather than published, because at that point the figure reflects the model’s limit rather than a measured burden.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
9.9 µg/L
in the bottom 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The average detected level of lithium — a natural trace metal with no federal drinking-water limit yet — across the public water systems serving this ZIP, in micrograms per liter.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 6.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST88thUS93rdDefinition & source ›
This area’s national rank on its single highest non-flood natural hazard — such as wildfire, tornado, or earthquake — in FEMA’s modeled National Risk Index; flooding is shown separately.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
4.8%
in the bottom 5.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST9thUS5thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
27.7%
in the bottom 5.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST7thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›The read
Cedar Park, Texas (ZIP 78613), on the composite measure, lands in the top 7.7% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,455th) and the top 4.2% of Texas (78th).
The readings split fairly evenly between strengths and concerns: subsidized affordable housing stands in the top 2.1% nationally, and modeled coronary heart disease is in the bottom 3.7% nationally. Distance to an emergency room rests at the national minimum, shared with about 11% of ZIPs. Modeled stroke sits in the bottom 3.5% nationally, and energy burden registers in the bottom 3.0% nationally. Lithium in drinking water lands in the bottom 6.5% nationally, and modeled hearing disability resides in the bottom 5.0% nationally. Working the other way, modeled extreme heat lies in the top 3.6% nationally, and expected annual loss settles in the top 3.6% nationally. Modeled disaster risk stands in the top 6.6% nationally.
Set against the neighboring ZIPs, expected annual loss runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. In everyday language, expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. Disaster risk is the area's national rank on its highest non-flood peril in FEMA's modeled Risk Index, like wildfire or quake. A healthier neighbor overall sits at ZIP 78681, just across the boundary.
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 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX 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 95%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 93%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 75%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 82%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 76%
8%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 41%
13%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 13%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 92%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 95%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 85%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 93%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 83%
8%
Disability
healthier than 93%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 69%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 58%
14%
Nothing measured is holding this score back.
Lifting this score
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 70%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 72%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 67%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 76%
8%
Disability
healthier than 72%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 86%
5%
Healthcare Access
in the top 0.00%
5%
About typical
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 59%
21%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 36%
14%
“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
78641
Texasshares a border
Score 61.77
Closest healthier
78681
Texasshares a border
Score 64.01
Similar health profile
75034
Texas100% similar profile
Score 64.48
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 | 19.1% | 16.9–21.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 27.7% | 24.7–30.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.6% | 6.0–7.2 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.2% | 8.1–10.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 4.1% | 3.7–4.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.0% | 3.6–4.4 |
| Depression among adults | 21.1% | 18.4–24.0 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 8.9% | 7.7–10.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 32.5% | 29.2–35.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 31.2% | 26.6–35.9 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.2% | 2.1–2.4 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 6.7% | 5.5–8.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 9.8% | 8.7–11.2 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 72.3% | 69.0–75.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 75.3% | 72.0–78.4 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 88.2% | 86.7–89.5 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 63.2% | 59.4–67.0 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 65.1% | 62.2–68.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 77.8% | 72.1–82.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 17.7% | 15.0–20.6 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 9.1% | 7.9–10.5 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 20.0% | 17.2–23.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.2% | 29.3–37.3 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 14.2% | 12.5–16.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.2% | 13.6–16.9 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 9.9% | 8.8–11.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.3% | 10.1–12.6 |
| Any disability among adults | 23.1% | 20.3–26.1 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.8% | 4.3–5.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.6% | 5.1–6.3 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 9.1% | 8.0–10.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.4% | 2.2–2.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.4% | 3.1–3.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.2% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 12.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 9.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 22.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.4% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 12.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 55.8% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.7% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.5% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.1% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 28.8% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 26.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868 |
| Homeownership rate | 63.9% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.8% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 3.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868 |
| Foreign-born population | 19.0% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 8.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886 |
| Single-parent households | 39.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861 |
| Population 65+ | 11.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 16.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886 |
| Median age | 37.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 38.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866 |
| Median household income | $125,487 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737 |
| Median home value | $496,200 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693 |
| Median gross rent | $1,815 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,154 ($764–$1,815) n=1,508 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | TX median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 80.6 yr ± 0.50 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.2 yr (75.1–81.7) n=1,772 |
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 0.50 years of 80.6, 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