How the figures are made
Every number on this site is a count from a government’s own inspection file, divided by another count from the same file. This page says exactly which inspections are counted, how the margin of error is worked out, and what the figures cannot tell you.
The short version
For each chain in each place, we take its routine health inspections and work out what share of them recorded that place’s serious finding. We do the same sum for every restaurant in the place. Then we show the chain next to that local figure, with a range around it that says how sure the records let us be.
We never add up or average figures from two places, and we never number chains first to last.
The sources
A place is covered when its government publishes every routine inspection (not only the ones with violations), keeps the file current, and allows reuse. The snapshots are refreshed once a month, and each page prints the date of the newest record and the date we pulled the file.
DBPR Division of Hotels and Restaurants — food service inspection extracts, Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
Counted: first visits of routine inspections at permanent food-service licenses; callbacks, complaint and licensing inspections are left out.
The finding: the inspection recorded at least one high-priority violation.
On file: 270,924 counted inspections, July 2023 through October 1, 2026; 58.2% recorded the finding. 30 chains charted.
Reuse: Public records under Florida Statutes chapter 119. The division's notes on the files state no restriction on reuse and no attribution requirement.
DOHMH New York City Restaurant Inspection Results, NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
Counted: initial cycle inspections; re-inspections, complaint and pre-permit visits are left out.
The finding: the inspection scored 14 or more points, so did not earn an A on the first visit.
On file: 44,638 counted inspections, January 2023 through September 30, 2026; 40.2% recorded the finding. 11 chains charted.
Reuse: New York City's Open Data Law (Administrative Code section 23-502) makes public data sets available without restrictions on their use, and lets the city require a reuser to name the source and version and describe any modifications, which this site does.
Food Service Establishment Inspections: Beginning 2005 (Active), New York State Department of Health.
Covers: Every county except New York City's five, Suffolk and Erie, which run their own inspection systems and are not in the state's file.
Counted: inspections of permitted food service establishments; re-inspections are left out, as are schools, camps, institutions and feeding programmes.
The finding: the inspection recorded at least one critical (red) violation.
On file: 116,738 counted inspections, January 2023 through September 25, 2026; 25.1% recorded the finding. 18 chains charted.
Reuse: The department asks that the data be used for statistical reporting and analysis only, and that the author state that the conclusions are the author's own. That statement is below.
The analyses, interpretations and conclusions drawn from New York State data on this site were reached by FastFoodFact and not by the New York State Department of Health. The department states that this data was not collected for use as a restaurant grading system and does not support or endorse such a use; the figures here describe groups of inspections and are not a grade of any restaurant.
CDPH Food Inspections, Chicago Department of Public Health.
Counted: canvass (routine) inspections of restaurants; re-inspections, complaint and license visits are left out.
The finding: the inspection ended in a Fail.
On file: 39,049 counted inspections, January 2019 through September 30, 2026; 24.4% recorded the finding. 14 chains charted.
Reuse: Provided as is under the City of Chicago's Data Terms of Use, which require the notice below wherever the data is used.
This site provides applications using data that has been modified for use from its original source, www.cityofchicago.org, the official website of the City of Chicago. The City of Chicago makes no claims as to the content, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided at this site. The data provided at this site is subject to change at any time. It is understood that the data provided at this site is being used at one’s own risk.
Food Establishment Inspection Scores, Austin Public Health.
Counted: routine inspections; follow-up inspections are left out.
The finding: the inspection scored under 90, below the city's top category.
On file: 20,357 counted inspections, October 2023 through September 10, 2026; 33.6% recorded the finding. 7 chains charted.
Reuse: Public domain, per the license field on the City of Austin's dataset.
Food Establishment Inspection Data, Public Health - Seattle & King County.
Counted: routine inspections of establishments holding the county's General Food Services permit; return and educational inspections are left out.
The finding: the inspection received an Unsatisfactory result, meaning a red critical violation was noted.
On file: 38,765 counted inspections, January 2023 through September 30, 2026; 35.6% recorded the finding. 11 chains charted.
Reuse: Public domain, per the license field on King County's dataset.
SNHD restaurant and food establishment inspection database, Southern Nevada Health District.
Covers: All of Clark County, including Henderson, North Las Vegas, Mesquite, Laughlin and the Strip, which the health district inspects as one jurisdiction.
Counted: routine inspections of establishments permitted as restaurants; re-inspections, complaint investigations and permitting visits are left out, as are bars, snack bars, buffets, school and institutional kitchens.
The finding: the inspection recorded at least one 5-demerit violation, the district's most serious class.
On file: 25,461 counted inspections, September 2023 through October 1, 2026; 44.8% recorded the finding. 15 chains charted.
Reuse: Published for reuse: the health district offers the whole database as a nightly download from a page addressed to developers. Its disclaimer is a liability notice only, with no restriction on reuse and no attribution requirement.
Environmental Health Bulk Data: Inspections and Establishments, Louisville Metro Department of Public Health and Wellness.
Covers: All of Jefferson County, which Louisville Metro's health department inspects as one jurisdiction.
Counted: regular inspections of establishments permitted as food service; follow-up and complaint inspections are left out, as are school, day care and hospital kitchens, mobile units, caterers, commissaries, and the numbered concession stands inside the KFC Yum! Center arena.
The finding: the inspection ended in a C grade, meaning the restaurant failed the inspection and a follow-up visit was required.
On file: 19,122 counted inspections, September 2021 through September 24, 2026; 5.0% recorded the finding. 13 chains charted.
Reuse: Published under the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License. Louisville Metro's open data terms ask anyone republishing a dataset to identify its source, version and any modifications, which this page and its data file do.
Wake County Open Data: Restaurants, Food Inspections and Food Inspection Violations, Wake County Environmental Services.
Covers: All of Wake County, North Carolina, including Raleigh, Cary, Apex, Wake Forest and Garner, which the county inspects as one jurisdiction.
Counted: inspections of restaurants and food stands; re-inspections are left out, as are mobile units, school lunchrooms, institutions and meat markets. The county does not type complaint visits separately, so any recorded as an inspection are counted.
The finding: the inspection marked at least one item out of compliance in the state form's section on foodborne illness risk factors.
On file: 21,497 counted inspections, October 2021 through October 1, 2026; 83.1% recorded the finding. 13 chains charted.
Reuse: Licensed by Wake County under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, which asks for credit, a link to the licence and a note of any changes. That notice is below.
Contains data from Wake County Government's open data portal, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). FastFoodFact grouped the county's inspection records by chain and counted them; the county did not make or review these figures. Wake County states that it shall not be held liable for any errors in these data, and that primary sources must be consulted for verification.
Food Inspections: Inspection and Violation History, Sacramento County Environmental Management Department.
Covers: All of Sacramento County, including the cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Folsom and Rancho Cordova, which the county inspects as one jurisdiction.
Counted: routine food inspection reports at restaurants and food preparation establishments; follow-up, complaint and permit inspections are left out, as are markets, schools, bars, mobile units and caterers, and any facility that also holds another kind of permit, such as a supermarket with a deli counter. Reports from other county programmes made on the same visit are not food inspections and are not counted.
The finding: the inspection ended in a yellow or red placard, meaning two or more major violations or a closure.
On file: 16,240 counted inspections, October 2023 through October 1, 2026; 7.9% recorded the finding. 9 chains charted.
Reuse: Public domain: Sacramento County publishes the dataset under a Creative Commons public domain dedication.
What gets counted
- Inspections, not violations. Some files list one row per violation. Counting rows would make a chain with many restaurants look worse simply for having more of them, so rows are grouped into inspections first, and each inspection counts once.
- Routine inspections only. Complaint visits, licensing and pre-opening visits, and suspected-illness investigations are left out. They are triggered by something, so they are not a fair sample of how a restaurant usually runs.
- The first visit only. When an inspector finds a problem, they come back. Those return visits happen only at restaurants that already had a problem, so counting them would count the same problem twice.
- One yes-or-no finding per place. Each place has its own serious outcome, listed above. An inspection either recorded it or did not. We do not count how many violations, or add up points.
The figure and its range
A chain’s figure is k divided by n: the number of its counted inspections that recorded the finding, over all its counted inspections. The comparison figure is the same sum over everything in the file, chains included. Where the file lets us, that is restaurants only. Where it does not, it is a wider group, and the place’s page names it: Austin’s file also holds grocery stores, convenience stores and school kitchens and does not label them; New York State’s counties label restaurants unevenly, so delis, bakeries, taverns and caterers are counted in; and King County’s figure is everything holding its General Food Services permit.
The range is a 95% Wilson score interval. In plain terms: the inspections we have are one sample of how a chain’s restaurants perform, and a different few months would have produced a slightly different figure. The range shows how far it could plausibly move. A chain with 3,000 inspections gets a range a few points wide; a chain with 110 gets one ten points wide or more.
centre = (p + z²/2n) / (1 + z²/n) half-width = z · √( p(1−p)/n + z²/4n² ) / (1 + z²/n) with p = k/n and z = 1.96
We use Wilson’s interval instead of the simpler textbook one because it behaves properly with small samples and low rates, and never runs below 0% or above 100%. Sources: E. B. Wilson, “Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 22 (1927); Brown, Cai and DasGupta, “Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion,” Statistical Science 16 (2001), which recommends it.
A chain needs 100 counted inspections in a place to be charted. Below that, the range is too wide to say anything, so the chain is listed with its count and no bar.
Why chains are not numbered first to last
When two ranges overlap, the records cannot say which chain is really lower. In most places that describes most neighbouring chains. A list numbered 1 to 14 would claim a precision the inspections do not have, so the site draws ranges and marks only three states: clearly under the local rate, too close to it to call, and clearly over it. Tables are sorted by measured rate so they can be read, and say so.
Why places are never compared
Each place counts a different event under different rules: Florida counts inspections that recorded at least one high-priority violation; New York City counts inspections that scored 14 or more points; New York State counts inspections that recorded at least one critical (red) violation; Chicago counts inspections that ended in a Fail; Austin counts inspections that scored under 90, below the city's top category; Seattle and King County counts inspections that received an Unsatisfactory result, meaning a red critical violation was noted; Las Vegas and Clark County counts inspections that recorded at least one 5-demerit violation, the district's most serious class; Louisville counts inspections that ended in a C grade, meaning the restaurant failed the inspection and a follow-up visit was required; Raleigh and Wake County counts inspections that marked at least one item out of compliance in the state form's section on foodborne illness risk factors; and Sacramento County counts inspections that ended in a yellow or red placard, meaning two or more major violations or a closure. A 58.2% in one place and a 7.9% in another are not two readings of the same thing, so no figure on this site combines two places, and there is no national table.
What does carry across is whether a chain sits under, level with, or over its own place’s rate. The homepage sets those side by side, each column on its own axis, and counts them. It does no arithmetic on the rates themselves.
Matching restaurant names to chains
Government files record whatever name is on the license: “MCDONALDS #11371”, “MC DONALDS RESTAURANTS OF FLA”, “WENDY’S PROPERTIES LLC”. We match them to 34 chains with a table of name patterns, currently version 2026-09-20.4. The full table, and every name it matched, is published so anyone can check it.
A location recorded under two chain names, such as a combined KFC and Taco Bell, is one kitchen. Crediting either brand would be a guess, so it is counted for neither (it still counts toward all restaurants).
If a name is matched to the wrong chain, or a chain’s locations are being missed, write to hello@fastfoodfact.com. Corrections change the table, the version number, and every figure that depends on it.
What the figures cannot tell you
- How well a chain is run, on its own. Chains handle different food. A coffee counter has fewer ways to be written up than a kitchen frying raw chicken. Part of any gap between chains is the menu.
- Anything about one restaurant. A figure describes a chain’s franchised and company locations in one place over one period. It is not the brand everywhere, and not the restaurant near you. For a single restaurant, look it up with the agency that inspected it.
- A fair sample of restaurants. Every place here inspects higher-risk and previously cited restaurants more often. They appear more often in any count of inspections, for chains and for all restaurants alike.
- Restaurants that have closed, where the source drops them. New York City’s file holds only restaurants still in business on the day it is published, and New York State’s holds only establishments operating now.
- Differences between inspectors or districts. Inspectors differ, and a chain concentrated in one part of a state is seen by fewer of them. The records do not let us adjust for that.
When a source goes quiet
Inspection portals break, move and stop updating; half of the first ten we checked were unusable. If a source’s newest record is more than 60 days old, its page and its column on the homepage are labelled as out of date. If a monthly refresh fails, the last good snapshot stays up with its own dates on it.
Informational only. These are public records, summarized; they are not a safety rating of any restaurant and not professional advice. Last reviewed: September 2026.