Threats to safety in the U.S. come in many forms, from public health crises and natural disasters to mass shootings and traffic accidents. People can feel unsafe in other ways, too. Aside from the types of hazards that can cause bodily injury or other physical harm, taking out an unaffordable second mortgage, forgoing health insurance or even visiting unsecured websites are also ways people run into danger. One big worry for many people right now is the cost of inflation, which threatens Americans’ financial safety.
No one can avoid all danger, however, and we take on a certain level of risk based on where we choose to live. Some cities are simply better at protecting their residents from harm. To determine where Americans can feel most secure — in more than one sense — WalletHub compared more than 180 cities across 41 key indicators of safety. Our data set ranges from traffic fatalities per capita and assaults per capita to the unemployment rate and the percentage of the population that is uninsured.
Top 5 Safest Cities in the U.S.
- Warwick, RI
- Overland Park, KS
- Burlington, VT
- Juneau, AK
- Yonkers, NY
Chip Lupo, WalletHub Analyst
Main Findings
Safest Cities in the U.S.
| Overall Rank* | City | Total Score | Home & Community Safety Rank | Natural-Disaster Risk Rank | Financial Safety Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Warwick, RI | 71.21 | 8 | 9 | 44 |
| 2 | Overland Park, KS | 70.04 | 4 | 118 | 16 |
| 3 | Burlington, VT | 68.79 | 33 | 6 | 9 |
| 4 | Juneau, AK | 68.74 | 86 | 1 | 57 |
| 5 | Yonkers, NY | 68.65 | 3 | 29 | 118 |
| 6 | Casper, WY | 68.42 | 51 | 5 | 7 |
| 7 | South Burlington, VT | 68.35 | 46 | 6 | 3 |
| 8 | Columbia, MD | 68.02 | 2 | 11 | 51 |
| 9 | Lewiston, ME | 67.77 | 63 | 4 | 2 |
| 10 | Salem, OR | 66.93 | 52 | 13 | 31 |
| 11 | Nashua, NH | 66.72 | 13 | 111 | 8 |
| 12 | Boise, ID | 66.65 | 41 | 46 | 6 |
| 13 | Laredo, TX | 66.43 | 26 | 25 | 81 |
| 14 | Santa Rosa, CA | 66.43 | 32 | 20 | 93 |
| 15 | Virginia Beach, VA | 66.37 | 27 | 53 | 43 |
| 16 | Nampa, ID | 66.35 | 43 | 16 | 46 |
| 17 | Irvine, CA | 66.05 | 6 | 127 | 116 |
| 18 | Chesapeake, VA | 66.03 | 24 | 42 | 61 |
| 19 | Cedar Rapids, IA | 66.00 | 23 | 43 | 74 |
| 20 | Bismarck, ND | 65.95 | 42 | 65 | 4 |
| 21 | Honolulu, HI | 65.82 | 31 | 57 | 27 |
| 22 | Portland, ME | 65.75 | 58 | 23 | 1 |
| 23 | Chula Vista, CA | 65.52 | 21 | 39 | 113 |
| 24 | Vancouver, WA | 65.45 | 80 | 2 | 70 |
| 25 | Madison, WI | 65.25 | 30 | 88 | 21 |
| 26 | Lincoln, NE | 65.23 | 35 | 115 | 14 |
| 27 | Fremont, CA | 64.98 | 20 | 137 | 65 |
| 28 | Pearl City, HI | 64.91 | 1 | 57 | 13 |
| 29 | Gilbert, AZ | 64.83 | 9 | 155 | 36 |
| 30 | Port St. Lucie, FL | 64.78 | 10 | 56 | 167 |
| 31 | Boston, MA | 64.59 | 50 | 31 | 26 |
| 32 | Omaha, NE | 64.52 | 40 | 96 | 35 |
| 33 | Aurora, IL | 64.50 | 17 | 62 | 126 |
| 34 | Missoula, MT | 64.30 | 88 | 8 | 19 |
| 35 | Fargo, ND | 64.10 | 54 | 74 | 20 |
| 36 | Glendale, CA | 64.02 | 7 | 150 | 146 |
| 37 | West Valley City, UT | 63.76 | 45 | 82 | 37 |
| 38 | Sioux Falls, SD | 63.75 | 57 | 86 | 12 |
| 39 | San Diego, CA | 63.68 | 38 | 39 | 90 |
| 40 | Chandler, AZ | 63.49 | 19 | 155 | 30 |
| 41 | Scottsdale, AZ | 63.49 | 22 | 155 | 24 |
| 42 | Huntington Beach, CA | 63.44 | 25 | 127 | 106 |
| 43 | Worcester, MA | 63.37 | 37 | 80 | 40 |
| 44 | Santa Clarita, CA | 63.30 | 5 | 150 | 175 |
| 45 | Huntsville, AL | 63.28 | 44 | 63 | 42 |
| 46 | Rancho Cucamonga, CA | 63.21 | 18 | 166 | 97 |
| 47 | St. Paul, MN | 63.16 | 74 | 44 | 23 |
| 48 | Moreno Valley, CA | 63.12 | 16 | 68 | 153 |
| 49 | Oceanside, CA | 63.00 | 36 | 39 | 103 |
| 50 | Garden Grove, CA | 62.72 | 29 | 127 | 120 |
| 51 | Oxnard, CA | 62.58 | 49 | 59 | 111 |
| 52 | Bridgeport, CT | 62.31 | 56 | 28 | 91 |
| 53 | Rapid City, SD | 62.02 | 69 | 98 | 5 |
| 54 | Manchester, NH | 61.76 | 55 | 111 | 17 |
| 55 | Cape Coral, FL | 61.52 | 14 | 132 | 168 |
| 56 | Fontana, CA | 61.47 | 28 | 166 | 135 |
| 57 | Hialeah, FL | 61.32 | 12 | 116 | 174 |
| 58 | Providence, RI | 61.23 | 61 | 47 | 96 |
| 59 | Seattle, WA | 61.22 | 109 | 22 | 15 |
| 60 | Fort Wayne, IN | 61.22 | 65 | 32 | 102 |
| 61 | Brownsville, TX | 61.13 | 48 | 95 | 68 |
| 62 | Newport News, VA | 60.66 | 76 | 30 | 85 |
| 63 | Wichita, KS | 60.60 | 73 | 91 | 22 |
| 64 | Des Moines, IA | 60.46 | 71 | 50 | 75 |
| 65 | Grand Prairie, TX | 60.39 | 11 | 179 | 125 |
| 66 | Peoria, AZ | 60.34 | 39 | 143 | 53 |
| 67 | Cheyenne, WY | 59.86 | 79 | 114 | 29 |
| 68 | Billings, MT | 59.86 | 113 | 37 | 10 |
| 69 | Reno, NV | 59.73 | 110 | 26 | 52 |
| 70 | Modesto, CA | 59.71 | 104 | 21 | 87 |
| 71 | Mesa, AZ | 59.68 | 53 | 155 | 49 |
| 72 | Anchorage, AK | 59.33 | 135 | 3 | 18 |
| 73 | Raleigh, NC | 59.32 | 60 | 165 | 32 |
| 74 | Austin, TX | 59.23 | 64 | 142 | 45 |
| 75 | Jersey City, NJ | 58.94 | 93 | 17 | 137 |
| 76 | Lubbock, TX | 58.88 | 62 | 120 | 95 |
| 77 | Ontario, CA | 58.71 | 47 | 166 | 139 |
| 78 | Winston-Salem, NC | 58.61 | 78 | 97 | 69 |
| 79 | Irving, TX | 58.49 | 34 | 178 | 112 |
| 80 | Amarillo, TX | 58.46 | 82 | 154 | 38 |
| 81 | Charlotte, NC | 58.45 | 66 | 135 | 82 |
| 82 | Grand Rapids, MI | 58.44 | 98 | 64 | 48 |
| 83 | New Haven, CT | 58.41 | 102 | 36 | 73 |
| 84 | San Jose, CA | 58.39 | 100 | 99 | 39 |
| 85 | Pembroke Pines, FL | 58.36 | 15 | 174 | 171 |
| 86 | Montgomery, AL | 58.31 | 84 | 34 | 141 |
| 87 | Columbus, GA | 58.16 | 70 | 48 | 172 |
| 88 | Anaheim, CA | 58.12 | 72 | 127 | 127 |
| 89 | North Las Vegas, NV | 57.99 | 59 | 103 | 173 |
| 90 | Lexington-Fayette, KY | 57.97 | 91 | 73 | 80 |
| 91 | Rochester, NY | 57.85 | 95 | 67 | 83 |
| 92 | Norfolk, VA | 57.55 | 92 | 79 | 84 |
| 93 | Spokane, WA | 57.54 | 115 | 24 | 79 |
| 94 | Riverside, CA | 57.52 | 85 | 68 | 131 |
| 95 | Sacramento, CA | 56.82 | 114 | 54 | 99 |
| 96 | Santa Ana, CA | 56.81 | 81 | 127 | 133 |
| 97 | Durham, NC | 56.72 | 89 | 148 | 33 |
| 98 | El Paso, TX | 56.69 | 99 | 78 | 101 |
| 99 | St. Petersburg, FL | 56.60 | 101 | 45 | 136 |
| 100 | Salt Lake City, UT | 56.58 | 122 | 82 | 28 |
| 101 | Fort Smith, AR | 56.31 | 107 | 106 | 41 |
| 102 | Tampa, FL | 56.30 | 77 | 147 | 115 |
| 103 | Charleston, WV | 56.24 | 126 | 55 | 11 |
| 104 | Tempe, AZ | 56.21 | 83 | 155 | 47 |
| 105 | Fresno, CA | 55.94 | 87 | 176 | 117 |
| 106 | Henderson, NV | 55.73 | 96 | 103 | 151 |
| 107 | Oklahoma City, OK | 55.61 | 105 | 141 | 58 |
| 108 | Huntington, WV | 55.51 | 137 | 14 | 55 |
| 109 | Plano, TX | 55.51 | 75 | 171 | 88 |
| 110 | Newark, NJ | 55.42 | 94 | 35 | 179 |
| 111 | Las Cruces, NM | 55.34 | 116 | 60 | 89 |
| 112 | Tucson, AZ | 55.19 | 127 | 27 | 98 |
| 113 | Miami, FL | 55.16 | 68 | 116 | 180 |
| 114 | Greensboro, NC | 54.96 | 108 | 123 | 104 |
| 115 | Arlington, TX | 54.94 | 67 | 181 | 130 |
| 116 | Minneapolis, MN | 54.56 | 129 | 133 | 25 |
| 117 | New York, NY | 54.34 | 123 | 66 | 100 |
| 118 | Springfield, MO | 54.29 | 133 | 51 | 63 |
| 119 | Gulfport, MS | 54.18 | 97 | 144 | 107 |
| 120 | Tallahassee, FL | 54.00 | 106 | 139 | 123 |
| 121 | San Francisco, CA | 53.96 | 149 | 10 | 86 |
| 122 | Stockton, CA | 53.67 | 131 | 52 | 138 |
| 123 | Long Beach, CA | 53.58 | 112 | 150 | 148 |
| 124 | San Antonio, TX | 53.55 | 111 | 162 | 108 |
| 125 | Fort Worth, TX | 53.42 | 90 | 177 | 143 |
| 126 | Knoxville, TN | 53.36 | 132 | 90 | 62 |
| 127 | Aurora, CO | 53.35 | 125 | 93 | 132 |
| 128 | Tulsa, OK | 53.18 | 120 | 119 | 92 |
| 129 | Bakersfield, CA | 52.85 | 124 | 109 | 134 |
| 130 | Corpus Christi, TX | 52.48 | 147 | 18 | 56 |
| 131 | Glendale, AZ | 52.46 | 118 | 155 | 72 |
| 132 | Columbia, SC | 52.14 | 119 | 126 | 129 |
| 133 | Garland, TX | 52.07 | 103 | 173 | 145 |
| 134 | Indianapolis, IN | 51.94 | 138 | 33 | 128 |
| 135 | Cincinnati, OH | 51.36 | 134 | 102 | 121 |
| 136 | Phoenix, AZ | 51.28 | 130 | 155 | 71 |
| 137 | Charleston, SC | 50.98 | 128 | 145 | 78 |
| 138 | Pittsburgh, PA | 50.97 | 143 | 84 | 50 |
| 139 | Portland, OR | 50.96 | 157 | 19 | 34 |
| 140 | Buffalo, NY | 50.36 | 141 | 108 | 59 |
| 141 | Tacoma, WA | 50.22 | 161 | 12 | 60 |
| 142 | Mobile, AL | 50.20 | 117 | 170 | 155 |
| 143 | Fayetteville, NC | 49.62 | 121 | 164 | 160 |
| 144 | Toledo, OH | 49.58 | 136 | 72 | 170 |
| 145 | Kansas City, MO | 49.08 | 153 | 38 | 66 |
| 146 | Dover, DE | 49.00 | 142 | 76 | 144 |
| 147 | Milwaukee, WI | 48.49 | 151 | 49 | 109 |
| 148 | Akron, OH | 47.94 | 140 | 113 | 154 |
| 149 | Louisville, KY | 47.84 | 144 | 134 | 110 |
| 150 | Las Vegas, NV | 47.56 | 145 | 103 | 169 |
| 151 | Augusta, GA | 47.07 | 139 | 89 | 152 |
| 152 | Shreveport, LA | 46.86 | 146 | 75 | 176 |
| 153 | Wilmington, DE | 46.06 | 148 | 121 | 157 |
| 154 | Albuquerque, NM | 45.78 | 162 | 110 | 67 |
| 155 | Colorado Springs, CO | 45.34 | 152 | 180 | 76 |
| 156 | Los Angeles, CA | 44.69 | 150 | 150 | 163 |
| 157 | St. Louis, MO | 44.59 | 170 | 15 | 140 |
| 158 | Birmingham, AL | 44.01 | 156 | 94 | 165 |
| 159 | Columbus, OH | 43.83 | 164 | 85 | 122 |
| 160 | Orlando, FL | 43.45 | 160 | 122 | 119 |
| 161 | Chicago, IL | 43.16 | 154 | 140 | 159 |
| 162 | Denver, CO | 42.86 | 172 | 81 | 105 |
| 163 | Dallas, TX | 42.77 | 155 | 172 | 142 |
| 164 | Little Rock, AR | 42.75 | 159 | 146 | 114 |
| 165 | Jacksonville, FL | 42.28 | 158 | 124 | 158 |
| 166 | Nashville, TN | 41.98 | 168 | 149 | 54 |
| 167 | Chattanooga, TN | 41.80 | 174 | 77 | 64 |
| 168 | Richmond, VA | 41.39 | 175 | 70 | 94 |
| 169 | Oakland, CA | 41.28 | 169 | 137 | 124 |
| 170 | Jackson, MS | 40.43 | 167 | 125 | 149 |
| 171 | Atlanta, GA | 40.26 | 163 | 163 | 164 |
| 172 | Washington, DC | 39.81 | 178 | 92 | 77 |
| 173 | Cleveland, OH | 39.74 | 171 | 107 | 162 |
| 174 | Philadelphia, PA | 39.39 | 176 | 87 | 150 |
| 175 | San Bernardino, CA | 38.57 | 173 | 166 | 156 |
| 176 | Houston, TX | 38.10 | 165 | 182 | 161 |
| 177 | Fort Lauderdale, FL | 37.28 | 166 | 174 | 178 |
| 178 | Baltimore, MD | 36.69 | 180 | 61 | 166 |
| 179 | Detroit, MI | 36.38 | 177 | 100 | 181 |
| 180 | Baton Rouge, LA | 33.74 | 181 | 136 | 147 |
| 181 | Memphis, TN | 33.71 | 179 | 101 | 182 |
| 182 | New Orleans, LA | 31.57 | 182 | 71 | 177 |
Note: *No. 1 = Safest
With the exception of “Total Score,” all of the columns in the table above depict the relative rank of that city, where a rank of 1 represents the best conditions for that metric category.

- Fewest
- 1. Santa Rosa, CA
- 2. Henderson, NV
- 3. Fargo, ND
- 4. Pearl City, HI
- 5. Bismarck, ND

- Most
- T-176. Little Rock, AR
- T-176. Tucson, AZ
- T-176. Jackson, MS
- T-176. Knoxville, TN
- T-176. Memphis, TN

- Most
- T-1. Washington, DC
- T-1. New York, NY
- T-1. Detroit, MI
- 4. Chicago, IL
- 5. Wilmington, DE

- Fewest
- 172. Vancouver, WA
- 173. Fontana, CA
- 174. Salem, OR
- 175. Fremont, CA
- 176. Irvine, CA

- Fewest
- 1. Virginia Beach, VA
- 2. Irvine, CA
- 3. Warwick, RI
- 4. Pembroke Pines, FL
- 5. Plano, TX

- Most
- 175. Oakland, CA
- 176. Kansas City, MO
- T-177. Little Rock, AR
- T-177. Detroit, MI
- T-177. Memphis, TN

- Fewest
- 1. Fort Worth, TX
- 2. El Paso, TX
- 3. Colorado Springs, CO
- 4. Tampa, FL
- 5. Wichita, KS

- Most
- 173. St. Paul, MN
- T-174. Washington, DC
- T-174. Portland, OR
- T-174. Boston, MA
- T-174. Vancouver, WA

- Lowest
- T-1. Sioux Falls, SD
- T-1. Rapid City, SD
- T-1. South Burlington, VT
- T-1. Burlington, VT
- T-1. Miami, FL

- Highest
- 176. Modesto, CA
- 177. Toledo, OH
- 178. Newark, NJ
- 179. Stockton, CA
- 180. Detroit, MI

- Highest
- 1. Wichita, KS
- 2. Portland, ME
- T-3. Minneapolis, MN
- T-3. St. Paul, MN
- T-5. Portland, OR
- T-5 Vancouver, WA

- Lowest
- T-116. Miami, FL
- T-116. Hialeah, FL
- T-116. Fort Lauderdale, FL
- T-116. Pembroke Pines, FL
- 120. Memphis, TN

- Lowest
- 1. South Burlington, VT
- 2. Fremont, CA
- T-3. Boston, MA
- T-3. Pearl City, HI
- T-5. Washington, DC
- T-5. Warwick, RI

- Highest
- 178. Dallas, TX
- 179. Houston, TX
- 180. Garland, TX
- 181. Laredo, TX
- 182. Brownsville, TX

- Lowest
- 1. Juneau, AK
- 2. Vancouver, WA
- 3. Anchorage, AK
- 4. Lewiston, ME
- 5. Casper, WY

- Highest
- 178. Irving, TX
- 179. Grand Prairie, TX
- 180. Colorado Springs, CO
- 181. Arlington, TX
- 182. Houston, TX
In-Depth Look at the Safest Cities
Warwick, RI
Warwick, RI, is the safest city, with the third-lowest number of aggravated assaults per capita and the 32nd-lowest number of murders out of the 182 cities in our study. It also has the seventh-lowest number of thefts per capita, so residents can worry less about both violent and non-violent crimes.
When it comes to natural disasters, Warwick ranks as the city with the seventh-lowest risk of hail, 10th-lowest risk of wildfires, 23rd-lowest risk of tornadoes and 29th-lowest risk of earthquakes.
Finally, Warwick provides good conditions for financial safety. It has the fourth-lowest percentage of residents without health insurance as well as the fourth-lowest percentage who are living in poverty. The city also has the 37th-fewest fraud complaints per capita.
Overland Park, KS
Overland Park, KS, is the second-safest city in 2025, in part because of its safe roads. It has the fifth-lowest pedestrian fatality rate in the country along with the 21st-lowest percentage of uninsured motorists. While accidents do occur, the city fortunately has the 15th-lowest traffic fatalities rate among the cities analyzed.
One area where Overland Park really shines, which many people might not think about, is financial safety. It has the 14th-lowest unemployment rate in the country, at 3.3%, the fifth-highest median credit score, the lowest share of residents who are living in poverty, and the fourth-lowest share of owner occupied housing units with a mortgage that spend 35% of their income on housing. This demonstrates that residents are doing well financially and are at a reduced risk of being unable to pay their bills, losing their property or becoming homeless.
On top of that, Overland Park has the fourth-highest employer-based retirement plan access rate and the sixth-highest participation rate. Together, these factors make Overland Park one of the strongest cities in the country for financial security and retirement readiness.
Burlington, VT
Burlington, VT, ranks as the third-safest city, in part because it has the 26th-lowest murder rate and the 17th-highest share of sheltered homeless population. It also has the 25th-lowest number of rape offenses and there were no terrorist attack or related incidents recorded in the city along the past decade.
In addition, Burlington residents are at relatively low risk for several types of natural disasters or severe weather. The city has the 14th-lowest risk of flooding, 21st-lowest risk of tornadoes, and 31st-lowest risk of wildfires.
Burlington residents are also quite safe from fraudsters – the city has the fourth-fewest identity theft complaints and the 22nd-fewest fraud complaints per capita. In addition, Burlington has the seventh-lowest percentage of uninsured population, which prevents people from racking up hefty expenses after an accident.
Ask the Experts
For the best ways to improve safety, we asked a panel of experts to weigh in with their thoughts on the following key questions:
- What steps should local authorities take to help reduce the public costs associated with clean-ups after major natural disasters? Should flood or other types of insurance be mandatory?
- What are some of the top public safety issues this year?
- What measures can police departments take to increase public trust? How important is it to have a police force that is representative of the local community?
- How do police shortages affect safety in U.S. cities?
- What can consumers do to increase their financial literacy since sound financial decisions increase a person’s financial safety?
Ask the Experts
Ph.D. – Professor, Department of Criminal Justice - University of Central Florida
Read More
Director, Strategic Client Relations, Federal Law Enforcement - LexisNexis Special Services, Inc
Read More
Ph.D. – Professor of Public Policy; Founder & Director, The Public Engagement in Governance Looking, Listening, & Learning Laboratory (PEGLLLLab) – University of Virginia, Frank Batten School of Leadership & Public Policy
Read More
Policy Director and Clinical Lecturer in Law, Justice Collaboratory, Yale Law School – Yale University
Read More
Ph.D. – Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Geography & GIS, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences – DePaul University
Read More
Ph.D. – Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, School of Public Affairs – Penn State Harrisburg
Read More
Methodology
In order to determine the safest cities in which to live, WalletHub compared 182 cities — including the 150 most populated U.S. cities, plus at least two of the most populated cities in each state — across three key dimensions: 1) Home & Community Safety, 2) Natural-Disaster Risk, and 3) Financial Safety.
We evaluated those dimensions using 41 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest level of safety.
We then determined each city’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample. In determining our sample, we considered only the city proper in each case, excluding cities in the surrounding metro area.
Home & Community Safety - Total Points: 60
- Presence of Terrorist Attacks: Triple Weight (~7.83 Points)
Note: This binary metric considers the presence or absence of terrorist attack or terrorist-related incident in the city between 2015 and 2025. - Number of Mass Shootings: Full Weight (~2.61 Points)
- Murders & Non-Negligent Manslaughters per Capita: Triple Weight (~7.83 Points)
- Forcible Rapes per Capita: Double Weight (~5.22 Points)
- Assaults per Capita: Full Weight (~2.61 Points)
- Thefts per Capita: Full Weight (~2.61 Points)
- Sex Offenders per Capita: Double Weight (~5.22 Points)
- Law-Enforcement Employees per Capita: Half Weight (~1.30 Points)
- Active Firefighters per Capita: Half Weight (~1.30 Points)
- EMTs & Paramedics per Capita: Half weight (~1.30 Points)
Note: “EMTs” refer to Emergency Medical Technicians. - Hate Crimes per Capita: Full Weight (~2.61 Points)
- Share of Sheltered Homeless: Half Weight (~1.30 Points)
- Perception of Safety (Safety walking alone during daylight/night): Full Weight (~2.61 Points)
Note: These data are based on perceptions of visitors of Numbeo website in the past 3 years. If the value is 0, it means it is perceived as very low, and if the value is 100, it means it is perceived as very high. - Drug Poisoning Deaths per Capita: Double Weight (~5.22 Points)
- Traffic Fatalities per Capita: Full Weight (~2.61 Points)
- Pedestrian Fatalities per Capita: Double Weight (~5.22 Points)
Note: “Pedestrians” also includes pedacyclists. - Road Quality: Full Weight (~2.61 Points)
Natural-Disaster Risk - Total Points: 20
- Earthquake Risk Index Score: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
- Riverine Flood Risk Index Score: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
- Hail Risk Index Score: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
- Hurricane Storm-Surge Risk Index Score: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
- Tornado Risk Index Score: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
- Wildfire Risk Index Score: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
Financial Safety - Total Points: 20
- Unemployment Rate: Double Weight (~2.11 Points)
- Underemployment Rate: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Share of Uninsured Population: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Share of Uninsured Drivers: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Foreclosure Rate: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Median Credit Score: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Debt-to-Income Ratio: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Share of Owner Occupied Housing Units Spending at Least 35% of Their Household Income on Housing: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Poverty Rate: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Fraud & Other Complaints per Capita: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
Note: “Other” includes both financial and nonfinancial complaints. - Identity-Theft Complaints per Capita: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Share of Unbanked Households: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Job Security: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
Note: (Number of Employees in 2024 - Number of Employees in 2023) / Number of Employees in 2023. - Employment Growth: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
Note: This metric was adjusted for the working-age population growth and compares figures between 2024 and 2023. - Share of Households with Emergency Savings: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
Note: This metric measures the share of households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months. - Retirement Plan Access & Participation Rate: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
Note: “Retirement Plan” includes only employer-based plans. - Personal Bankruptcy Filings per Capita: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
- Share of Seriously Underwater Mortgages: Full Weight (~1.05 Points)
Note: This metric measures the proportion of seriously underwater mortgages, where the combined estimated balance of loans secured by those properties was at least 25 percent more than their estimated market value.
Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected as of September 22, 2025 from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Bureau of Investigation, TransUnion, Parents for Megan’s Law, U.S. Fire Administration, US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Wm. Robert Johnston, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Chmura Economics & Analytics, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Pew Charitable Trusts, County Health Rankings, Numbeo, Gun Violence Archive, Federal Emergency Management Agency, ATTOM, a property data provider - U.S. Foreclosure Market Report, ATTOM, a property data provider – U.S. Home Equity & Underwater Report and Insurance Information Institute.













WalletHub's personal finance experts are frequently cited by leading media outlets. Contact our media team to arrange an interview.