Skip to main content
ZipVitals

ZIP code

78633

in Georgetown, TexasPopulation 29,309

63.36/ 100

Ranked #2,780 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 8.7%)

Ranked #90 of 1,868 Texas ZIPs (top 4.9%)

Ranked #28 of 89 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX ZIPs (top 31%)

Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.

Robust across all 9 health domains

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.

Colon-cancer screening

79.1%

in the top 0.4% nationally

Higher is healthier

ST99th
US99th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.

Full methodology ›

Short sleep

25.8%

in the bottom 0.6% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST1st
US1st
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults who usually sleep less than seven hours in a 24-hour period.

Full methodology ›

Binge drinking

10.2%

in the bottom 1.6% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST1st
US2nd
Definition & 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 ›

Dry extreme heat

88.9 days/year

in the top 3.3% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST67th
US97th
Definition & source ›

The average number of days per year with a modeled daily high of at least 95 °F.

Full methodology ›

High cholesterol

46.5%

in the top 2.1% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST99th
US98th
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.

Full methodology ›

Cognitive disability

8.8%

in the bottom 1.8% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST1st
US2nd
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.

Full methodology ›

PFOA in drinking water

97%

in the top 5.5% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST97th
US95th
Definition & source ›

The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOA, one of the man-made “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.

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 ›

PFOS in drinking water

97%

in the top 5.6% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST94th
US94th
Definition & source ›

The share of residents served by public water systems where PFOS, one of the most common “forever chemicals,” was detected in EPA testing.

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 ›

Arsenic in groundwater

1.2%

in the bottom 6.2% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST5th
US6th
Definition & source ›

The modeled probability that untreated groundwater in this area — the source private wells draw on — exceeds the federal arsenic limit of 10 micrograms per liter.

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 ›

Tooth loss

5.3%

in the bottom 2.8% nationally

Lower is healthier

ST2nd
US3rd
Definition & source ›

The estimated share of adults aged 65 and older who have lost all of their natural teeth.

Full methodology ›

The read

ZIP 78633, one of several in Georgetown, Texas, by its composite score, sits in the top 8.7% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,780th) and the top 4.9% of Texas (90th).

continue reading

The data opens on a genuinely even set of readings: modeled colon screening registers in the top 0.4% nationally, and short sleep settles in the bottom 0.6% nationally. Modeled binge drinking sits in the bottom 1.6% nationally, and cognitive disability lies in the bottom 1.8% nationally. Modeled arsenic rests in the bottom 6.2% nationally, and tooth loss resides in the bottom 2.8% nationally. On the other side, modeled extreme heat is in the top 3.3% nationally, modeled high cholesterol lands in the top 2.1% nationally, and PFOA in drinking water stands in the top 5.5% nationally. PFOS in drinking water registers in the top 5.6% nationally.

Next to the surrounding area, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For anyone unfamiliar, PFOA in drinking water is one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. PFOS in drinking water is a common one of the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down. Arsenic is a natural groundwater contaminant, here a modeled estimate of the chance private-well levels exceed a benchmark. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 78681, about 4.7 miles away.

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.

Compare within

Lifting this score

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 85%

16%

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 92%

14%

Preventive Care

in the top 0.5%

13%

Risk Behavior

in the top 0.4%

11%

Mental Health

healthier than 98%

8%

Disability

healthier than 69%

7%

Healthcare Access

healthier than 61%

5%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 27%

21%

Climate / Disaster Risk

healthier than 10%

5%

Lifting this score

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 87%

16%

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 88%

14%

Preventive Care

in the top 0.00%

13%

Risk Behavior

in the top 0.00%

11%

Mental Health

in the top 0.3%

8%

Disability

healthier than 76%

7%

About typical

Climate / Disaster Risk

healthier than 52%

5%

Healthcare Access

healthier than 53%

5%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

healthier than 14%

21%

Lifting this score

Environmental Hazard

healthier than 92%

14%

Preventive Care

in the top 0.00%

13%

Risk Behavior

in the top 0.00%

11%

Mental Health

in the top 0.00%

8%

About typical

Social Need / SDOH

healthier than 45%

16%

Climate / Disaster Risk

healthier than 58%

5%

Holding it back

Chronic Disease Burden

in the bottom 0.00%

21%

Disability

healthier than 40%

7%

Healthcare Access

healthier than 31%

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 ›

Findings that name this ZIP

One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.

  • Clean environment, heavy chronic burden

    Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions

    Environmental-hazard standing 92.4 (top 10%); chronic-disease standing 26.9 — 66 points apart, cleaner on the environment than it is on chronic illness.

    Ranked #1,350 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.

Nearby & similar ZIPs

Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.

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
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Arthritis among adults36.8%32.9–40.7
High blood pressure among adults45.4%41.1–49.5
Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults16.8%15.2–18.4
Current asthma among adults8.9%7.8–10.0
Coronary heart disease among adults9.6%8.6–10.8
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults7.2%6.3–8.2
Depression among adults18.1%15.4–21.0
Diagnosed diabetes among adults14.1%12.2–16.2
High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened46.5%42.0–50.8
Obesity among adults29.4%24.4–34.6
Stroke among adults4.4%4.0–4.9
All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years5.3%4.3–6.5
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years7.8%6.7–9.0
Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure86.8%84.1–89.0
Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults86.0%83.6–88.1
Cholesterol screening among adults94.8%94.1–95.5
Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years79.1%75.8–82.2
Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults72.5%69.8–75.2
Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years80.4%74.7–85.5
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Binge drinking among adults10.2%8.4–12.2
Current cigarette smoking among adults7.3%6.1–8.6
No leisure-time physical activity among adults22.6%19.1–26.4
Short sleep duration among adults25.8%22.3–29.6
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults16.3%14.2–18.8
Frequent mental distress among adults10.7%9.4–12.2
Frequent physical distress among adults12.3%10.8–14.1
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
MeasureCrude prevalence95% CI
Cognitive disability among adults8.8%7.7–10.1
Any disability among adults31.5%27.8–35.5
Hearing disability among adults10.8%9.6–12.1
Independent living disability among adults6.2%5.5–7.1
Mobility disability among adults16.1%14.0–18.5
Self-care disability among adults3.1%2.7–3.4
Vision disability among adults3.9%3.5–4.4
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
MeasureValueUS median (p10–p90)TX median (p10–p90)
Poverty rate4.2%10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,36412.4% (3.5–26.4%) n=1,869
Uninsured 18–647.2%9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,28622.3% (8.2–41.5%) n=1,862
No HS diploma (25+)2.6%7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,50512.2% (2.5–30.0%) n=1,881
Bachelor's or higher (25+)55.9%23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,50521.9% (9.0–51.4%) n=1,881
Unemployment rate (16+)3.6%3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,2744.2% (0.0–9.4%) n=1,865
Households without a vehicle1.6%3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,3223.7% (0.0–10.8%) n=1,868
Broadband subscription96.2%89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,32289.2% (75.0–97.3%) n=1,868
Housing cost burden (≥30% income)26.7%23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,32226.2% (8.8–40.3%) n=1,868
Homeownership rate91.7%78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,32275.0% (46.4–92.3%) n=1,868
Crowded housing (>1 per room)0.7%1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,3223.1% (0.0–9.0%) n=1,868
Foreign-born population5.0%2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,5538.1% (0.1–26.4%) n=1,886
Single-parent households82.2%53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,08748.5% (34.3–70.6%) n=1,861
Population 65+55.0%19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,55316.1% (8.6–30.1%) n=1,886
Median age67.3 yr42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,29238.3 yr (30.9–52.3) n=1,866
Median household income$100,936$72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318$69,983 ($46,006–$112,413) n=1,737
Median home value$464,600$222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049$210,500 ($97,060–$429,760) n=1,693
Median gross rent$1,998$1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670$1,154 ($764–$1,815) n=1,508
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
MeasureValueUS median (p10–p90)TX median (p10–p90)
Life expectancy unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled.
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