ZIP code
94158
in San Francisco, CaliforniaPopulation 11,314
69.68/ 100
Ranked #645 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 2.1%)
Ranked #100 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 5.9%)
Ranked #50 of 174 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 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.
Median household income
$196,506
in the top 1.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST95thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The middle household income in this ZIP — half of households earn more, half earn less — in dollars per year.
Full methodology ›Obesity
16%
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 ›High blood pressure
17.1%
in the bottom 1.0% 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 ›High cholesterol
25.5%
in the bottom 1.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
2.3%
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 coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Stroke
1.3%
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 had a stroke.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
1,255 units
in the top 0.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Hearing disability
2.9%
in the bottom 0.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST2ndUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing.
Full methodology ›Energy-cost burden
0.33%
in the bottom 0.01% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & 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 ›Binge drinking
21.9%
in the top 1.9% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & 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 ›Cross-source signals
Combined exposures in this ZIP
More than one environmental exposure stands out in this ZIP. Each is established independently and shown on its own above; they are grouped here for context — not because one causes the other.
This area ranks among the highest 10% of US ZIP codes for both flood exposure and the share of households without a vehicle.
See the full flooding, evacuation & humid-heat analysis →
The read
Judged by its overall standing, ZIP 94158, one of several in San Francisco, California sits in the top 2.1% healthiest ZIPs nationally (645th) and the top 5.9% of California (100th).
A few readings each way define this mixed profile: household income is in the top 1.2% nationally, modeled obesity lies in the bottom 0.2% nationally, and modeled high blood pressure registers in the bottom 1.0% nationally. Modeled high cholesterol is in the bottom 1.4% nationally, coronary heart disease lies in the bottom 1.1% nationally, and stroke registers in the bottom 1.1% nationally. Subsidized affordable housing is in the top 0.9% nationally, and modeled hearing disability lies in the bottom 0.8% nationally. Modeled energy burden registers in the bottom 0.01% nationally. Pulling the other way, modeled binge drinking is in the top 1.9% nationally.
Placed beside its immediate neighbors, slow internet speeds runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. Put plainly, subsidized affordable housing is the main federal tax-credit program (HUD) funding affordable rental housing, counted as local units it supports. Energy burden is the share of household income that goes to home energy bills. A healthier nearby ZIP overall is ZIP 94105, about 0.1 miles away. Across other measures, the ZIP 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 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 0.4%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.08%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 76%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 74%
8%
Disability
healthier than 99%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 78%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 34%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 11%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 24%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 99%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.00%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 64%
14%
Mental Health
healthier than 71%
8%
Disability
healthier than 98%
7%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 54%
11%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 57%
5%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
healthier than 30%
13%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 23%
5%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 99%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.00%
16%
Disability
healthier than 94%
7%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 29%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 12%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 21%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 33%
8%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 10%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 39%
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 34.5; chronic-disease standing 99.7 (top 1%) — 65 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #15,942 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
94107
Californiashares a border
Score 68.31
Closest healthier
94105
Californiaabout 0.1 mi away
Score 72.17
Similar health profile
75202
Texas98% similar profile
Score 65.97
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 | 9.8% | 8.4–11.3 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 17.1% | 14.8–19.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 3.0% | 2.7–3.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 8.4% | 7.4–9.4 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 2.3% | 2.0–2.5 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 2.3% | 1.9–2.7 |
| Depression among adults | 21.2% | 18.4–24.3 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 5.4% | 4.7–6.3 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 25.5% | 22.5–28.7 |
| Obesity among adults | 16.0% | 12.8–19.7 |
| Stroke among adults | 1.3% | 1.2–1.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 7.3% | 5.9–8.9 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 5.7% | 4.4–7.4 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 55.4% | 51.9–59.2 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 66.6% | 62.7–70.6 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 82.6% | 80.1–85.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 58.0% | 53.3–62.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 67.8% | 64.7–70.9 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.1% | 72.6–84.6 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 21.9% | 18.9–25.3 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 7.8% | 6.1–9.8 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 15.4% | 12.5–18.6 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.4% | 28.8–38.4 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.0% | 10.8–15.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.4% | 13.5–17.5 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 7.9% | 6.8–9.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 11.7% | 9.9–13.7 |
| Any disability among adults | 19.6% | 16.6–23.0 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 2.9% | 2.5–3.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.2% | 4.4–6.1 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 5.5% | 4.7–6.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 1.7% | 1.5–2.0 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.0% | 2.6–3.4 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 28.3% | 24.2–32.2 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 12.3% | 9.4–15.4 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 9.7% | 7.4–12.5 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 10.2% | 8.1–12.2 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 7.1% | 5.9–8.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 40.4% | 35.3–45.2 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 5.3% | 4.4–6.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.7% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 0.8% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.6% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 79.0% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 4.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 23.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 91.8% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 30.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 34.5% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 9.4% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 41.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 54.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 8.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 32.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $196,506 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $1,429,600 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $3,501 | $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 | 81.1 yr ± 1.33 | 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 1.33 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