ZIP code
95127
in San Jose, CaliforniaPopulation 58,825
57.31/ 100
Ranked #6,972 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 22%)
Ranked #652 of 1,719 California ZIPs (top 38%)
Ranked #53 of 61 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA ZIPs (bottom 13.2%)
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.
Expected annual disaster loss
$1
in the top 0.7% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST95thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Crowded housing
15.9%
in the top 2.0% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes with more than one person per room, the Census definition of crowded housing.
Full methodology ›PFOS in drinking water
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & 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 ›Loneliness
41.5%
in the top 2.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST91stUS98thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who report feeling lonely.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
674 units
in the top 2.9% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST92ndUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›Lithium in drinking water
9.5 µg/L
in the bottom 3.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST5thUS3rdDefinition & 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 ›Loud transportation noise
2.7%
in the top 4.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST72ndUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Natural-disaster risk
in the top 4.6% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST81stUS95thDefinition & 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 ›Colon-cancer screening
55.6%
in the bottom 5.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST24thUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults aged 45–75 who are up to date on colorectal-cancer screening.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of residents served by public water systems where PFAS — man-made “forever chemicals” that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down — were 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 ›The read
ZIP 95127, one of several in San Jose, California, by its composite score, sits in the top 22% healthiest ZIPs nationally (6,972nd) and the top 38% of California (652nd).
The measures land in both directions, and neither dominates: subsidized affordable housing lies in the top 2.9% nationally, and lithium in drinking water rests in the bottom 3.3% nationally. Pulling the other way, modeled expected annual loss resides in the top 0.7% nationally, and crowded housing is in the top 2.0% nationally. PFOS in drinking water lands at the national maximum, modeled loneliness stands in the top 2.3% nationally, and modeled loud transportation noise registers in the top 4.6% nationally. Modeled disaster risk settles in the top 4.6% nationally, modeled colon screening sits in the bottom 5.6% nationally, and PFAS in drinking water lies at the national maximum.
Next to the surrounding area, expected annual loss runs far higher 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. 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. Lithium in drinking water is a natural metal that dissolves into some groundwater and has no federal drinking-water limit yet. For a healthier comparison close by, see ZIP 95132, 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 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 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
healthier than 94%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 78%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 82%
8%
Disability
healthier than 62%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 62%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 93%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 50%
16%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 18%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 8%
13%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 82%
21%
Mental Health
healthier than 81%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 87%
5%
About typical
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 51%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 49%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 57%
11%
Disability
healthier than 57%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 46%
5%
Holding it back
Preventive Care
healthier than 25%
13%
Lifting this score
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 63%
14%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 93%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 43%
8%
Holding it back
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 28%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 8%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 15%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 13%
11%
Disability
healthier than 10%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 37%
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
2 of our published findings list 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.
Above what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 83.7 ± 1.4 years. A median household income of $128,786 predicts 81.1 years — 2.6 years above.
Ranked #595 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 17.7; chronic-disease standing 94.0 (top 10%) — 76 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,939 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
95116
Californiashares a border
Score 50.84
Closest healthier
95132
Californiashares a border
Score 67.95
Similar health profile
94580
California98% similar profile
Score 57.23
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 | 17.2% | 15.2–19.2 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 28.7% | 25.9–31.6 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 4.8% | 4.4–5.3 |
| Current asthma among adults | 8.4% | 7.4–9.5 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.1% | 4.6–5.6 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 4.3% | 3.8–4.8 |
| Depression among adults | 18.5% | 16.1–21.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 13.0% | 11.4–14.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 34.6% | 31.5–37.8 |
| Obesity among adults | 27.0% | 23.1–31.2 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.9% | 2.7–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 9.9% | 8.1–12.0 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 14.7% | 12.8–16.6 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 69.6% | 66.3–72.8 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 68.8% | 65.3–72.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 83.5% | 81.6–85.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 55.6% | 51.2–59.9 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 59.1% | 56.0–62.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.9% | 69.4–81.7 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 13.0% | 10.9–15.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.0% | 9.5–12.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 30.4% | 26.8–34.1 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.9% | 30.0–37.9 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 23.9% | 21.5–26.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 16.0% | 14.3–17.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 13.2% | 11.8–14.8 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 14.7% | 13.2–16.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 30.9% | 27.6–34.2 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.6% | 5.0–6.3 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.7% | 6.9–8.5 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 13.6% | 12.1–15.3 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 3.8% | 3.5–4.2 |
| Vision disability among adults | 6.3% | 5.7–6.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 32.4% | 28.8–36.0 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 21.0% | 18.6–23.5 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 15.9% | 13.9–17.8 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 17.2% | 15.1–19.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 10.2% | 9.1–11.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 41.5% | 37.3–45.6 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 7.6% | 6.7–8.7 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | CA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 8.3% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 10.6% (4.1–24.9%) n=1,714 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.9% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 7.7% (1.7–17.9%) n=1,704 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 25.2% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 9.8% (1.4–30.9%) n=1,729 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 28.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.3% (9.9–68.2%) n=1,729 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 6.4% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 6.1% (0.8–12.0%) n=1,714 |
| Households without a vehicle | 3.2% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 4.5% (0.0–12.2%) n=1,708 |
| Broadband subscription | 94.5% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 93.4% (82.1–98.4%) n=1,708 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 40.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 38.6% (24.4–50.5%) n=1,708 |
| Homeownership rate | 65.3% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 64.1% (31.9–86.4%) n=1,708 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 15.9% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 4.8% (0.0–15.9%) n=1,708 |
| Foreign-born population | 43.2% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (3.0–40.4%) n=1,730 |
| Single-parent households | 41.6% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 48.4% (35.1–72.3%) n=1,692 |
| Population 65+ | 15.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 17.0% (9.7–35.7%) n=1,730 |
| Median age | 38.7 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 40.1 yr (31.8–57.0) n=1,712 |
| Median household income | $128,786 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $93,448 ($54,188–$159,562) n=1,584 |
| Median home value | $1,035,800 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $659,800 ($300,520–$1,493,340) n=1,593 |
| Median gross rent | $2,641 | $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 | 83.7 yr ± 0.71 | 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 0.71 years of 83.7, 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