ZIP code
94123
in San Francisco, CaliforniaPopulation 24,054
71.76/ 100
Ranked #311 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 1.0%)
Ranked #51 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 3.0%)
Ranked #23 of 174 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA ZIPs (top 13.3%)
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.
Median household income
$218,603
in the top 0.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Binge drinking
25.7%
in the top 0.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Obesity
16.1%
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$1
in the top 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›High blood pressure
18.6%
in the bottom 1.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Food insecurity
5.4%
in the bottom 0.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Loud transportation noise
6.2%
in the top 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 65 decibels — around the volume of normal conversation.
Full methodology ›Utility shut-off threat
3.2%
in the bottom 0.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults whose household was threatened with a utility shut-off in the past 12 months.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
4.9%
in the bottom 1.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›High cholesterol
27.7%
in the bottom 1.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS2ndDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 94123, one of several in San Francisco, California, by its composite score, sits in the top 1.0% healthiest ZIPs nationally (311th) and the top 3.0% of California (51st).
The measures fall on both sides for this area, fairly evenly: household income is in the top 0.7% nationally, and modeled obesity lands in the bottom 0.2% nationally. Modeled high blood pressure stands in the bottom 1.1% nationally, and food insecurity registers in the bottom 0.7% nationally. Modeled utility shutoff settles in the bottom 0.9% nationally, diabetes sits in the bottom 1.2% nationally, and high cholesterol lies in the bottom 1.9% nationally. Pulling the other way, modeled binge drinking rests in the top 0.4% nationally, expected annual loss resides in the top 0.3% nationally, and loud transportation noise is in the top 0.9% nationally.
Next to the surrounding area, walkability 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. Loud transportation noise is the modeled share of an area exposed to road, rail, and air noise at or above 65 decibels, near conversation volume. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 94129, 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 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 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
in the top 0.9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 99%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 90%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 64%
8%
Disability
in the top 0.3%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 80%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 59%
13%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 31%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 40%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 98%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 98%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 62%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 77%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 80%
11%
Disability
in the top 0.3%
7%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 59%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 60%
5%
Holding it back
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 33%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 97%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 87%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 60%
13%
Disability
healthier than 98%
7%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 51%
11%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 46%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 25%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 20%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 18%
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.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 31.2; chronic-disease standing 99.2 (top 1%) — 68 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,214 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.
Nearby
94109
Californiashares a border
Score 64.35
Closest healthier
94129
Californiashares a border
Score 74.46
Similar health profile
28209
North Carolina100% similar profile
Score 67.42
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 | 13.8% | 12.1–15.7 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 18.6% | 16.4–21.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.1% | 5.6–6.7 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.1% | 8.1–10.2 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 2.9% | 2.6–3.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 2.3% | 2.1–2.6 |
| Depression among adults | 24.3% | 21.3–27.7 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 4.9% | 4.2–5.6 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 27.7% | 24.7–31.0 |
| Obesity among adults | 16.1% | 12.9–20.0 |
| Stroke among adults | 1.5% | 1.4–1.6 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 3.4% | 2.7–4.2 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 3.4% | 2.8–4.0 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 64.2% | 61.0–67.3 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 69.6% | 66.0–73.3 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 87.5% | 85.9–89.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 68.5% | 64.3–72.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 77.6% | 75.0–80.0 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 83.1% | 77.4–87.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 25.7% | 22.5–29.5 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 5.4% | 4.5–6.3 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 10.5% | 8.7–12.5 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 28.2% | 24.1–32.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 9.4% | 8.2–10.7 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 14.4% | 12.7–16.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 7.4% | 6.5–8.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 9.6% | 8.5–10.8 |
| Any disability among adults | 17.8% | 15.4–20.4 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 3.6% | 3.2–4.0 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 4.2% | 3.7–4.6 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.8–6.2 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 1.4% | 1.3–1.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 2.0% | 1.9–2.2 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.1% | 18.2–24.1 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.4% | 4.5–6.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 4.2% | 3.5–5.0 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 5.8% | 4.9–6.8 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 4.1% | 3.6–4.7 |
| Loneliness among adults | 36.0% | 31.6–40.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 3.2% | 2.7–3.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 4.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 2.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 3.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 83.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 26.1% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 96.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 27.7% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 30.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.7% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 18.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 57.8% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 11.6% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 32.9 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $218,603 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $2,000,001 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $3,289 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,912 ($1,113–$2,923) n=1,461 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 83.5 yr ± 0.75 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.5 yr (76.7–83.8) n=1,665 |
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 0.75 years of 83.5, 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