Executive Summary
For years, our annual Best & Worst States for Broadband study has tracked which states are leading and lagging in closing the digital divide. But states are big places, and state averages can hide as much as they reveal. This year, for the first time, we’re bringing the same six-category methodology down to street level: a complete broadband ranking of 150 of America’s largest cities, spanning 39 states and Washington, D.C. Each city is scored on six factors: broadband availability, low-priced plan availability, fiber access, download speed, upload speed, and latency.
Why It Matters
Broadband policy is made in Washington and administered by states, but broadband is lived locally. As BEAD construction begins across the country, the dollars will overwhelmingly flow to rural and unserved areas, on the assumption that America’s cities are already well served. Our inaugural city rankings test that assumption, and the results complicate it: urban America is indeed wired, and urban affordability is far better than the national picture suggests. But the gap between the best-connected and worst-connected big cities is enormous, and the cities at the top of our rankings are almost never the ones you’d guess.
Key Findings
Pembroke Pines, Florida is America’s best city for broadband.
It scored a near-perfect 99.6 out of 100, with 97.9% fiber coverage, low-priced plans available to 99.1% of households, and perfect marks in every network quality category. Cape Coral, Florida (#2) and Richmond, Virginia (#3) round out the podium, and Florida places five cities in the top 10.
Anchorage, Alaska is the worst city for broadband in America.
It scored just 34.9 out of 100. Not a single household has access to a plan we classify as low-priced, fiber reaches just 4% of households, and the city’s 49.1 Mbps median download is the slowest we measured. Toledo, Boise, and Mobile join it in the bottom five.
America’s biggest cities miss the podium entirely.
None of the nation’s 10 most populous cities cracks the top 25. New York ranks #73, Los Angeles #118, and Phoenix, America’s fifth-largest city, lands at #140, inside the bottom 10. The 10 largest cities average a rank of 80th out of 150.
The suburbs sweep the leaderboard.
Eight Dallas-Fort Worth suburbs rank in the top 25 while Dallas itself sits at #34. Yonkers (#5) outranks neighboring New York City by 68 spots, and Jersey City (#4) finishes exactly 100 places ahead of Newark (#104), two cities in the same metro area in the nation’s #1 broadband state.
Affordable internet is almost universal in America’s cities.
Across all 150 cities, an average of 95.5% of households can get a low-priced plan, versus 82.5% in the average state, and 34 cities put an affordable plan within reach of at least 99% of households.
Toledo, Ohio is one of the nation’s least affordable cities for internet.
Broadband is available to 99.6% of Toledo households, but only 36% can get a low-priced plan. That spread is the largest affordability gap outside Alaska and earns Toledo an F at #149.
New York City posts the lowest latency in this study at any level of geography.
Its 1.81 ms median round trip time beats every city and every state we measured, even though the city ranks just #73 overall.
The urban upload divide is real.
36 of the 150 cities in this study, nearly one in four, still post median upload speeds below the FCC’s 20 Mbps broadband benchmark.
“None of America’s 10 most populous cities ranks among the top 25 cities for broadband.”
The Best and Worst Cities for Broadband in 2026
Top 10 Best Cities for Broadband
| Rank | City | Overall Score | Grade | Key Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pembroke Pines, FL | 99.6 | A+ | Near-perfect across the board: 97.9% fiber, 99.1% low-price access |
| 2 | Cape Coral, FL | 99.0 | A+ | 208 Mbps median downloads and 72 Mbps uploads on 94.1% fiber |
| 3 | Richmond, VA | 98.8 | A+ | 99.6% of residents can get a low-priced plan; 91.9% fiber coverage |
| 4 | Jersey City, NJ | 98.8 | A+ | 99.6% low-price plan access with sub-8 ms latency |
| 5 | Yonkers, NY | 98.5 | A+ | 217 Mbps median download — fastest in the top 10 — on 96.9% fiber |
| 6 | Frisco, TX | 98.0 | A+ | 90.6 Mbps median upload, second-fastest measured in any U.S. city |
| 7 | Miami, FL | 97.9 | A+ | 4.4 ms median latency, third-lowest of any U.S. city |
| 8 | Hialeah, FL | 97.8 | A+ | 99.5% low-price plan access and 5.4 ms latency |
| 9 | Arlington, TX | 97.7 | A+ | Perfect scores in all three network quality categories |
| 10 | Fort Lauderdale, FL | 97.6 | A+ | Perfect quality scores with just 58.9% fiber, a cable-competition success story |
Bottom 10 Worst Cities for Broadband
| Rank | City | Overall Score | Grade | Key Challenge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 | Anchorage, AK | 34.9 | F | 0.0% low-priced plan access, 4% fiber, and the slowest downloads (49.1 Mbps) |
| 149 | Toledo, OH | 49.7 | F | A 63.6-point affordability gap: wired to 99.6%, affordable for just 36% |
| 148 | Boise, ID | 67.1 | D | Lowest median upload speed in the nation (11.2 Mbps) |
| 147 | Mobile, AL | 68.1 | D+ | 38.4 ms latency and 15.9 Mbps median uploads |
| 146 | Honolulu, HI | 68.2 | D+ | 99.4 ms median latency, the worst in the nation |
| 145 | Columbus, GA | 69.2 | D+ | Slow downloads and thin fiber coverage (40.4%)† |
| 144 | Detroit, MI | 69.4 | D+ | 23.3% fiber coverage; 13 Mbps median upload |
| 143 | Columbus, OH | 69.8 | D+ | 72 Mbps median download, among the slowest measured† |
| 142 | Las Vegas, NV | 70.7 | C- | 36% fiber and 27 ms latency in a 24/7 city |
| 141 | Akron, OH | 71.1 | C- | 12.3 Mbps median upload and 47% fiber coverage |
Suburbs Beat Big Cities in the Broadband Rankings
The single clearest pattern in our inaugural city data: America’s best broadband lives in its suburbs and mid-size cities, not its flagship metros.
The Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex is the starkest example. Frisco (#6), Arlington (#9), Plano (#11), Garland (#16), Fort Worth (#17), Grand Prairie (#20), McKinney (#23), and Irving (#25) — eight DFW cities in the national top 25, powered by some of the deepest fiber overbuilding in the country and some of the fastest residential upload speeds we measured anywhere. Dallas proper, with the same providers and a 2.8 ms median latency, still lands 9 to 28 spots behind its own suburbs at #34, dragged by lower availability in older housing stock.
Florida tells the same story: five cities in the national top 10, four of them from the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro alone (Pembroke Pines at #1, Miami at #7, Hialeah at #8, and Fort Lauderdale at #10), joined by Gulf Coast standout Cape Coral (#2).
And in the New York area, the contrast is almost surgical. Yonkers, sharing a border with the Bronx, ranks #5 with a 217 Mbps median download on 96.9% fiber coverage. New York City ranks #73. Jersey City ranks #4; Newark, in the same state that tops our state rankings, ranks #104. Same metros, same market, radically different consumer outcomes, a reminder that broadband quality is decided block by block, not by which media market you live in.
Broadband Rankings for America’s 10 Largest Cities
| U.S. Population Rank | City | 2026 Broadband Rank | Grade | Overall score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New York, New York | #73 | B+ | 88.2 |
| 2 | Los Angeles, California | #118 | C+ | 78.9 |
| 3 | Chicago, Illinois | #47 | A- | 91.4 |
| 4 | Houston, Texas | #39 | A | 93.4 |
| 5 | Phoenix, Arizona | #140 | C- | 71.6 |
| 6 | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | #92 | B | 83.9 |
| 7 | San Antonio, Texas | #74 | B+ | 88.1 |
| 8 | San Diego, California | #99 | B | 82.6 |
| 9 | Dallas, Texas | #34 | A | 95.2 |
| 10 | Jacksonville, Florida | #83 | B | 85.9 |
Only Dallas (#34) and Houston (#39) crack the top 40, and the group as a whole averages a rank of 80th, squarely mid-table. The pattern has a physical explanation: the nation’s largest cities carry the nation’s oldest housing stock, the most multi-dwelling units, and the most complex permitting environments, all of which slow fiber deployment. New York City has just 34.4% fiber coverage; Phoenix, 23.4%; Detroit, 23.3%. The story of big-city broadband in 2026 is not a lack of wires. It’s aging wires, and upgrade economics that favor the suburbs next door.
Internet Affordability in America’s Cities
Nationally, affordability is the defining broadband divide; our state rankings show that an average of just 82.5% of households can access a low-priced plan. Cities are different: across our 150 cities, that figure is 95.5%, and 34 cities put a low-priced plan within reach of at least 99% of households. Density creates competition, and competition disciplines pricing.
That makes the exceptions stand out sharply:
Largest access-vs-affordability gaps
| City | % of Households With Broadband Available | % of Households With a Low-Priced Plan Available | Affordability Gap (percentage points) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anchorage, Alaska | 99.2% | 0.0% | 99.2 pts |
| Toledo, Ohio | 99.6% | 36.0% | 63.6 pts |
| Lubbock, Texas | 99.6% | 88.2% | 11.4 pts |
| Mesa, Arizona | 95.8% | 85.2% | 10.6 pts |
| Tempe, Arizona | 99.9% | 89.5% | 10.4 pts |
| Tucson, Arizona | 98.3% | 89.3% | 9.0 pts |
| Phoenix, Arizona | 99.7% | 91.1% | 8.6 pts |
Anchorage is the worst broadband market among the 150 cities in this study. A 99.2-point affordability gap means broadband is physically available to virtually everyone and financially available to virtually no one. Toledo’s 63.6-point gap is the finding that should worry policymakers in the lower 48: this is not a remote market with brutal deployment economics. It’s a fully wired Midwestern city where pricing alone produces an F grade. And the cluster of five Arizona cities among the largest affordability gaps (Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Tucson, and Glendale) points to a metro-wide pricing problem in one of America’s fastest-growing regions.
The Most and Least Affordable Cities for Internet
Ranked by the share of households who can get a low-priced plan, these are the cities where affordable internet is most and least within reach:
Most Affordable Plan Access
| City | % of Households With a Low-Priced Plan Available | Overall 2026 Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | 99.9% | #21 |
| Chattanooga, Tennessee | 99.9% | #50 |
| Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | 99.9% | #92 |
| Overland Park, Kansas | 99.9% | #138 |
| Clarksville, Tennessee | 99.8% | #13 |
Least Affordable Plan Access
| City | % of Households With a Low-Priced Plan Available | Overall 2026 Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Anchorage, Alaska | 0% | #150 |
| Toledo, Ohio |
36% | #149 |
| Mesa, Arizona | 85.2% | #119 |
| Lubbock, Texas | 88.2% | #46 |
| Tucson, Arizona | 89.3% | #106 |
How Municipal and Local Fiber Networks Lift City Rankings
Some of the most striking results in our inaugural rankings come from mid-size cities where a municipal utility or aggressive local fiber builder changed the market’s trajectory:
- Clarksville, Tennessee (#13) posts the highest fiber coverage in the nation (99.7%), a 265.6 Mbps median download, and a perfect 0.0-point affordability gap, every resident who can get broadband can get it at a low price. Tennessee as a state ranks just 33rd; its best-performing city is a muni-fiber town, not Nashville (#122).
- Lincoln, Nebraska (#29) records a 180 Mbps median upload, the fastest upstream performance we measured anywhere, nearly double the next city, on 97.1% fiber coverage.
- Chattanooga, Tennessee (#50), America’s original “Gig City,” holds the edge of the top third, though our data suggests its early-mover advantage has been absorbed as fiber spread nationally.
The pattern holds in city after city: deep fiber coverage paired with local pricing discipline beats brand-name markets with older plant.
Why does fiber coverage vary so much from city to city? Mostly construction economics and local policy. Newer, fast-growing suburbs are cheaper to wire because providers can lay conduit while neighborhoods are being built instead of retrofitting old streets, which is part of why the Dallas-Fort Worth ring leads the country. Cities with municipal electric utilities, such as Clarksville and Chattanooga, can string fiber along poles and rights-of-way they already own. Permitting speed and franchise rules determine how quickly competitive builders can enter a market, and older urban cores carry the most apartment and condo buildings, where exclusive wiring agreements and retrofit costs slow deployment. Fiber clusters where building is cheap and approvals are fast, not necessarily where demand is highest.
How Cities Compare to Their States for Broadband
Because this report shares its methodology with our state rankings, we can ask a new question: which cities dramatically outperform, or lag, the state around them?
Cities that outperform their state’s broadband ranking
| City | City rank (of 150) | State | State rank (of 51) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cary | #12 | North Carolina | #34 |
| Peoria | #41 | Arizona | #43 |
| Clarksville | #13 | Tennessee | #33 |
| Madison | #52 | Wisconsin | #41 |
| Cincinnati | #56 | Ohio | #42 |
| Chandler | #61 | Arizona | #43 |
| Montgomery | #42 | Alabama | #36 |
Cities that underperform their state’s broadband ranking
| City | City rank (of 150) | State | State rank (of 51) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laredo | #134 | Texas | #10 |
| Brownsville | #132 | Texas | #10 |
| Worcester | #114 | Massachusetts | #4 |
| Newark | #104 | New Jersey | #1 |
| Corpus Christi | #121 | Texas | #10 |
| Fontana | #133 | California | #15 |
| Baltimore | #94 | Maryland | #2 |
The underperformers list is a who’s-who of urban cores in elite broadband states: Newark in #1-ranked New Jersey, Baltimore in #2-ranked Maryland, Worcester in #4-ranked Massachusetts. Texas, #10 among states, contains both eight of the nation’s top 25 cities and two of its bottom 20, with border cities Laredo (#134) and Brownsville (#132) posting some of the weakest scores in the study. A state’s rank, in other words, tells you surprisingly little about its cities.
Performance Superlatives
- Fastest median download: Port Saint Lucie, Florida, 276.1 Mbps
- Slowest median download: Anchorage, Alaskam, 49.1 Mbps
- Fastest median upload: Lincoln, Nebraska, 180 Mbps
- Slowest median upload: Boise, Idaho, 11.2 Mbps
- Lowest latency: New York, New York, 1.81 ms, the lowest median RTT in this study at any level of geography, with Dallas (2.84 ms) and Miami (4.44 ms) close behind
- Highest latency: Honolulu, Hawaii, 99.4 ms
- Highest fiber coverage: Clarksville, Tennessee, 99.7%
- Lowest fiber coverage: Anchorage, Alaska, 4.0%
- The upload elite: Seven cities post median uploads of 75 Mbps or better: Lincoln, Frisco, McKinney, Plano, Reno, Clarksville, and Irving — and four of the seven are Dallas–Fort Worth suburbs.
2026 Broadband Statistics: City Averages vs. State Averages
| Metric | Average Across 150 Cities | Average Across 50 States and D.C. | Best City | Worst City |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wired/Fixed Wireless Broadband Access (% of households) | 98.5% | 93.4% | 20 cities tied (99.9%) | Ontario, California (95.1%) |
| Low-Priced Broadband Access (% of households) | 95.5% | 82.5% | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (99.9%) | Anchorage, Alaska (0.0%) |
| Fiber Coverage (% of households) | 62.2% | 56.6% | Clarksville, Tennessee (99.7%) | Anchorage, Alaska (4.0%) |
| Median Download Speed† | 136.6 Mbps | 133.7 Mbps | Port Saint Lucie, Florida (276.1 Mbps) | Anchorage, Alaska (49.1 Mbps) |
| Median Upload Speed† | 33.4 Mbps | 31.8 Mbps | Lincoln, Nebraska (180 Mbps) | Boise, Idaho (11.2 Mbps) |
| Median Latency (RTT) | 19.1 ms | 23.2 ms | New York, New York (1.81 ms) | Honolulu, Hawaii (99.4 ms) |
| Provider Count | 16 | 62 | McKinney, Texas (25) | Anchorage, Alaska (7) |
The urban advantage is real, but it isn’t where you’d expect. Cities barely outrun the average state on raw download speed (136.6 vs. 135.5 Mbps). Where they pull decisively ahead is access (98.5% vs. 93.4%), affordability (95.5% vs. 82.5%), latency (19.1 vs. 22.8 ms), and fiber (62.2% vs. 56.6%).
The Complete 2026 City Rankings
| Rank | City | Grade | Score | Download (Mbps) | Upload (Mbps) | Latency, RTT (ms) | % of Households With Fiber Access | % of Households With Low-Priced Plan Access |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pembroke Pines, Florida | A+ | 99.6 | 208.1 | 39.7 | 6.0 | 97.9% | 99.1% |
| 2 | Cape Coral, Florida | A+ | 99.0 | 207.5 | 72.4 | 8.8 | 94.1% | 98.1% |
| 3 | Richmond, Virginia | A+ | 98.8 | 141.4 | 38.3 | 11.4 | 91.9% | 99.6% |
| 4 | Jersey City, New Jersey | A+ | 98.8 | 127.4 | 35.5 | 7.1 | 90.7% | 99.6% |
| 5 | Yonkers, New York | A+ | 98.5 | 217.2 | 46.2 | 5.6 | 96.9% | 97.8% |
| 6 | Frisco, Texas | A+ | 98.0 | 204.0 | 90.6 | 8.1 | 85.2% | 97.2% |
| 7 | Miami, Florida | A+ | 97.9 | 137.1 | 33.9 | 4.4 | 81.4% | 98.7% |
| 8 | Hialeah, Florida | A+ | 97.8 | 124.6 | 37.5 | 5.4 | 84.2% | 99.5% |
| 9 | Arlington, Texas | A+ | 97.7 | 149.7 | 47.8 | 8.1 | 82.7% | 97.1% |
| 10 | Fort Lauderdale, Florida | A+ | 97.6 | 151.9 | 37.8 | 8.3 | 58.9% | 99.2% |
| 11 | Plano, Texas | A+ | 97.6 | 170.2 | 86.5 | 7.6 | 89.6% | 96.3% |
| 12 | Cary, North Carolina | A | 97.4 | 206.7 | 40.9 | 13.4 | 94.2% | 98.2% |
| 13 | Clarksville, Tennessee | A | 97.4 | 265.6 | 79.8 | 16.0 | 99.7% | 99.8% |
| 14 | Fayetteville, North Carolina† | A | 97.1 | 601.9 | 714.4 | 10.8 | 77.5% | 97.5% |
| 15 | Aurora, Colorado† | A | 97.1 | 166.3 | 36.7 | 7.7 | 48.5% | 99.3% |
| 16 | Garland, Texas | A | 97.1 | 159.3 | 70.6 | 9.1 | 90.9% | 95.0% |
| 17 | Fort Worth, Texas | A | 97.0 | 157.9 | 58.6 | 9.5 | 82.2% | 93.8% |
| 18 | Colorado Springs, Colorado | A | 97.0 | 192.7 | 55.3 | 7.8 | 59.5% | 97.2% |
| 19 | Port Saint Lucie, Florida | A | 96.8 | 276.1 | 57.0 | 9.4 | 69.0% | 96.5% |
| 20 | Grand Prairie, Texas | A | 96.5 | 130.6 | 39.9 | 11.8 | 84.7% | 96.2% |
| 21 | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | A | 96.4 | 156.7 | 40.8 | 18.0 | 95.8% | 99.9% |
| 22 | Long Beach, California | A | 96.3 | 198.8 | 37.7 | 6.7 | 81.4% | 94.7% |
| 23 | Mckinney, Texas | A | 96.3 | 225.9 | 88.8 | 7.3 | 80.8% | 93.6% |
| 24 | Aurora, Illinois† | A | 96.2 | 166.3 | 36.7 | 7.7 | 29.9% | 99.5% |
| 25 | Irving, Texas | A | 96.1 | 187.7 | 78.8 | 7.2 | 80.0% | 94.3% |
| 26 | Chesapeake, Virginia | A | 96.0 | 138.3 | 38.4 | 12.3 | 85.1% | 96.0% |
| 27 | Fremont, California | A | 96.0 | 128.4 | 37.1 | 8.9 | 32.9% | 99.0% |
| 28 | Elk Grove, California | A | 96.0 | 147.0 | 37.3 | 14.3 | 66.6% | 98.1% |
| 29 | Lincoln, Nebraska | A | 95.9 | 204.7 | 180.0 | 16.7 | 97.1% | 96.2% |
| 30 | Chula Vista, California | A | 95.8 | 142.3 | 41.5 | 10.1 | 70.3% | 95.3% |
| 31 | Huntington Beach, California | A | 95.7 | 197.0 | 32.2 | 7.2 | 68.6% | 96.5% |
| 32 | Oxnard, California | A | 95.2 | 270.8 | 40.6 | 8.9 | 60.0% | 95.3% |
| 33 | Irvine, California | A | 95.2 | 184.7 | 55.0 | 7.6 | 45.4% | 96.2% |
| 34 | Dallas, Texas | A | 95.2 | 121.9 | 37.7 | 2.8 | 81.0% | 95.6% |
| 35 | Washington, D.C. | A | 94.6 | 123.4 | 33.0 | 14.9 | 86.3% | 99.8% |
| 36 | Grand Rapids, Michigan | A | 94.6 | 168.7 | 39.5 | 17.0 | 60.3% | 98.9% |
| 37 | Tampa, Florida | A | 93.7 | 157.6 | 33.0 | 14.1 | 86.3% | 95.0% |
| 38 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana | A | 93.5 | 155.2 | 53.4 | 15.0 | 70.4% | 94.9% |
| 39 | Houston, Texas | A | 93.4 | 114.6 | 33.9 | 13.0 | 78.0% | 99.1% |
| 40 | Fort Wayne, Indiana | A | 92.9 | 136.5 | 39.0 | 21.5 | 74.3% | 97.0% |
| 41 | Peoria, Arizona | A | 92.9 | 196.3 | 71.7 | 12.8 | 34.2% | 94.2% |
| 42 | Montgomery, Alabama | A | 92.8 | 186.6 | 36.1 | 12.5 | 51.5% | 92.8% |
| 43 | Lexington, Kentucky | A | 92.6 | 169.2 | 50.1 | 24.2 | 90.4% | 97.8% |
| 44 | Denver, Colorado | A- | 92.3 | 118.3 | 28.7 | 8.0 | 70.4% | 99.5% |
| 45 | Fresno, California | A- | 91.8 | 135.8 | 33.5 | 16.0 | 36.6% | 94.5% |
| 46 | Lubbock, Texas | A- | 91.4 | 225.0 | 41.2 | 19.9 | 82.5% | 88.2% |
| 47 | Chicago, Illinois | A- | 91.4 | 118.9 | 30.4 | 4.7 | 32.6% | 99.4% |
| 48 | Henderson, Nevada | A- | 91.1 | 151.7 | 30.4 | 15.4 | 39.9% | 96.7% |
| 49 | Santa Clarita, California | A- | 91.0 | 160.0 | 32.0 | 8.7 | 19.8% | 94.5% |
| 50 | Chattanooga, Tennessee | A- | 91.0 | 117.7 | 34.4 | 24.6 | 99.6% | 99.9% |
| 51 | Durham, North Carolina | A- | 90.8 | 211.5 | 30.0 | 16.6 | 83.5% | 94.4% |
| 52 | Madison, Wisconsin | A- | 90.7 | 198.8 | 38.0 | 23.3 | 62.7% | 96.1% |
| 53 | Austin, Texas | A- | 90.6 | 153.9 | 27.0 | 13.6 | 71.3% | 96.3% |
| 54 | Boston, Massachusetts | A- | 90.5 | 96.4 | 34.6 | 6.6 | 63.8% | 99.0% |
| 55 | Tacoma, Washington | A- | 90.2 | 128.4 | 24.5 | 8.7 | 40.9% | 99.3% |
| 56 | Cincinnati, Ohio | A- | 90.2 | 156.9 | 54.8 | 30.5 | 92.4% | 98.2% |
| 57 | San Francisco, California | B+ | 89.9 | 105.7 | 30.6 | 8.0 | 56.8% | 98.9% |
| 58 | Amarillo, Texas | B+ | 89.9 | 132.9 | 35.4 | 27.8 | 89.4% | 93.3% |
| 59 | Sioux Falls, South Dakota | B+ | 89.8 | 152.0 | 34.2 | 26.6 | 52.1% | 99.0% |
| 60 | Des Moines, Iowa | B+ | 89.8 | 169.7 | 69.9 | 32.7 | 91.1% | 98.8% |
| 61 | Chandler, Arizona | B+ | 89.7 | 149.2 | 49.1 | 22.6 | 29.8% | 94.9% |
| 62 | Ontario, California | B+ | 89.7 | 145.4 | 26.3 | 10.1 | 80.3% | 91.8% |
| 63 | Reno, Nevada | B+ | 89.5 | 176.4 | 81.2 | 24.0 | 41.5% | 94.1% |
| 64 | Moreno Valley, California | B+ | 89.5 | 149.0 | 22.9 | 10.9 | 69.4% | 97.3% |
| 65 | Cleveland, Ohio | B+ | 89.5 | 147.6 | 63.9 | 28.4 | 63.8% | 97.6% |
| 66 | Eugene, Oregon | B+ | 89.4 | 117.1 | 33.6 | 16.7 | 42.3% | 96.4% |
| 67 | Rochester, New York | B+ | 89.2 | 137.9 | 64.9 | 28.4 | 70.9% | 96.7% |
| 68 | Saint Petersburg, Florida | B+ | 89.2 | 225.2 | 27.8 | 13.9 | 46.9% | 96.0% |
| 69 | Newport News, Virginia | B+ | 89.1 | 119.7 | 26.6 | 13.4 | 90.9% | 96.7% |
| 70 | Gilbert, Arizona | B+ | 89.1 | 136.8 | 31.1 | 18.9 | 33.1% | 95.8% |
| 71 | Huntsville, Alabama | B+ | 89.1 | 114.6 | 50.6 | 26.2 | 88.6% | 99.1% |
| 72 | San Jose, California | B+ | 88.9 | 116.8 | 26.5 | 8.2 | 41.5% | 98.7% |
| 73 | New York, New York | B+ | 88.2 | 120.3 | 30.6 | 1.8 | 34.4% | 91.6% |
| 74 | San Antonio, Texas | B+ | 88.1 | 135.4 | 23.8 | 17.4 | 85.5% | 96.4% |
| 75 | Tallahassee, Florida | B+ | 88.0 | 117.9 | 39.8 | 21.1 | 63.7% | 94.7% |
| 76 | Scottsdale, Arizona | B+ | 87.7 | 135.5 | 34.5 | 22.8 | 28.5% | 92.4% |
| 77 | Saint Paul, Minnesota | B+ | 87.6 | 108.3 | 36.7 | 22.6 | 50.7% | 99.4% |
| 78 | Glendale, California† | B | 87.4 | 149.1 | 22.7 | 10.1 | 29.9% | 96.6% |
| 79 | Modesto, California | B | 87.3 | 117.6 | 29.2 | 13.9 | 23.5% | 95.7% |
| 80 | Spokane, Washington | B | 86.8 | 116.1 | 35.2 | 24.5 | 43.3% | 95.1% |
| 81 | Glendale, Arizona† | B | 86.7 | 149.1 | 22.7 | 10.1 | 20.5% | 93.5% |
| 82 | Bakersfield, California | B | 86.1 | 196.6 | 22.7 | 13.6 | 32.9% | 94.1% |
| 83 | Jacksonville, Florida | B | 85.9 | 115.8 | 28.9 | 22.9 | 64.8% | 98.9% |
| 84 | Seattle, Washington | B | 85.7 | 98.5 | 23.8 | 5.3 | 78.7% | 99.6% |
| 85 | Saint Louis, Missouri | B | 85.7 | 107.8 | 30.7 | 20.7 | 72.2% | 97.0% |
| 86 | Salem, Oregon | B | 85.6 | 121.0 | 27.5 | 13.8 | 16.9% | 94.6% |
| 87 | Vancouver, Washington | B | 85.5 | 117.8 | 24.6 | 13.5 | 20.8% | 99.0% |
| 88 | Birmingham, Alabama | B | 84.9 | 124.6 | 37.1 | 40.6 | 66.3% | 95.8% |
| 89 | Orlando, Florida | B | 84.5 | 143.8 | 22.0 | 18.7 | 66.6% | 94.6% |
| 90 | Oakland, California | B | 84.1 | 97.2 | 22.2 | 12.1 | 89.0% | 99.3% |
| 91 | San Bernardino, California | B | 84.0 | 131.2 | 16.6 | 13.1 | 75.1% | 93.7% |
| 92 | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | B | 83.9 | 101.7 | 21.0 | 14.4 | 95.2% | 99.9% |
| 93 | New Orleans, Louisiana | B | 83.6 | 94.3 | 47.2 | 19.1 | 44.5% | 93.5% |
| 94 | Baltimore, Maryland | B | 83.5 | 114.4 | 22.5 | 12.0 | 11.7% | 98.2% |
| 95 | Greensboro, North Carolina | B | 83.3 | 240.1 | 21.3 | 22.6 | 70.4% | 96.3% |
| 96 | North Las Vegas, Nevada | B | 83.1 | 113.4 | 23.2 | 16.0 | 36.2% | 96.8% |
| 97 | Stockton, California | B | 83.0 | 112.5 | 23.3 | 15.6 | 34.8% | 97.0% |
| 98 | Omaha, Nebraska | B | 82.9 | 119.5 | 30.7 | 36.7 | 81.4% | 96.7% |
| 99 | San Diego, California | B | 82.6 | 116.1 | 19.8 | 11.9 | 40.9% | 96.6% |
| 100 | Virginia Beach, Virginia | B | 82.6 | 110.1 | 19.7 | 13.3 | 72.6% | 97.2% |
| 101 | Tempe, Arizona | B- | 82.4 | 130.4 | 30.5 | 28.5 | 16.7% | 89.5% |
| 102 | Santa Ana, California | B- | 81.9 | 119.8 | 15.1 | 11.9 | 46.5% | 94.6% |
| 103 | Anaheim, California | B- | 81.7 | 116.2 | 16.5 | 11.5 | 34.3% | 95.0% |
| 104 | Newark, New Jersey | B- | 81.6 | 102.0 | 21.1 | 14.1 | 93.5% | 95.3% |
| 105 | El Paso, Texas | B- | 81.4 | 168.5 | 19.8 | 22.8 | 55.3% | 95.3% |
| 106 | Tucson, Arizona | B- | 81.3 | 116.9 | 29.5 | 21.9 | 16.3% | 89.3% |
| 107 | Salt Lake City, Utah | B- | 80.8 | 107.6 | 28.5 | 33.6 | 87.5% | 98.8% |
| 108 | Buffalo, New York | B- | 80.7 | 127.1 | 21.1 | 29.6 | 76.8% | 97.4% |
| 109 | Winston Salem, North Carolina | B- | 80.5 | 134.7 | 18.9 | 25.0 | 61.0% | 96.2% |
| 110 | Raleigh, North Carolina | B- | 80.3 | 106.7 | 23.1 | 24.0 | 86.8% | 97.1% |
| 111 | Tulsa, Oklahoma | B- | 80.2 | 113.1 | 23.8 | 20.1 | 60.7% | 93.4% |
| 112 | Portland, Oregon | B- | 80.0 | 108.7 | 21.5 | 25.0 | 77.9% | 99.2% |
| 113 | Indianapolis, Indiana | C+ | 79.8 | 112.3 | 20.9 | 25.1 | 68.9% | 98.8% |
| 114 | Worcester, Massachusetts | C+ | 79.7 | 155.6 | 16.9 | 20.0 | 27.8% | 95.5% |
| 115 | Atlanta, Georgia | C+ | 79.6 | 95.0 | 22.1 | 20.1 | 76.9% | 99.3% |
| 116 | Minneapolis, Minnesota | C+ | 79.5 | 100.5 | 23.4 | 24.9 | 72.6% | 99.7% |
| 117 | Augusta, Georgia | C+ | 79.0 | 113.3 | 23.3 | 27.4 | 34.7% | 99.4% |
| 118 | Los Angeles, California | C+ | 78.9 | 98.3 | 19.3 | 9.3 | 49.6% | 94.5% |
| 119 | Mesa, Arizona | C+ | 78.8 | 117.9 | 29.6 | 26.8 | 44.6% | 85.2% |
| 120 | Sacramento, California | C+ | 78.0 | 95.9 | 18.6 | 15.8 | 50.1% | 98.7% |
| 121 | Corpus Christi, Texas | C | 77.4 | 147.0 | 12.3 | 36.9 | 74.0% | 96.4% |
| 122 | Nashville, Tennessee | C | 77.4 | 100.5 | 24.3 | 32.0 | 81.3% | 99.3% |
| 123 | Riverside, California | C | 77.3 | 126.6 | 12.2 | 25.0 | 30.0% | 95.8% |
| 124 | Norfolk, Virginia | C | 77.3 | 114.0 | 15.7 | 25.2 | 73.5% | 96.7% |
| 125 | Louisville, Kentucky | C | 76.5 | 117.9 | 11.9 | 31.4 | 79.9% | 96.9% |
| 126 | Kansas City, Missouri | C | 76.2 | 113.9 | 19.5 | 36.8 | 94.1% | 97.5% |
| 127 | Providence, Rhode Island | C | 75.8 | 90.7 | 17.1 | 19.6 | 91.7% | 96.8% |
| 128 | Memphis, Tennessee | C | 75.8 | 101.5 | 22.6 | 30.4 | 50.6% | 99.4% |
| 129 | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | C | 75.4 | 96.1 | 16.9 | 19.3 | 72.7% | 94.0% |
| 130 | Albuquerque, New Mexico | C | 75.3 | 97.6 | 19.0 | 19.4 | 10.9% | 99.1% |
| 131 | Milwaukee, Wisconsin | C | 75.0 | 94.3 | 12.9 | 20.8 | 64.9% | 97.2% |
| 132 | Brownsville, Texas | C | 74.8 | 136.8 | 11.9 | 36.0 | 37.5% | 95.2% |
| 133 | Fontana, California | C | 73.9 | 95.5 | 11.4 | 17.1 | 24.5% | 95.8% |
| 134 | Laredo, Texas | C | 73.6 | 160.2 | 11.7 | 34.0 | 42.8% | 91.8% |
| 135 | Knoxville, Tennessee | C | 73.3 | 101.5 | 17.8 | 37.1 | 89.7% | 99.1% |
| 136 | Charlotte, North Carolina | C | 73.1 | 95.3 | 13.8 | 27.8 | 81.7% | 97.0% |
| 137 | Wichita, Kansas | C- | 72.2 | 74.8 | 22.3 | 27.6 | 79.1% | 95.1% |
| 138 | Overland Park, Kansas | C- | 72.0 | 85.2 | 20.2 | 37.5 | 99.7% | 99.9% |
| 139 | Little Rock, Arkansas | C- | 72.0 | 92.5 | 13.5 | 26.9 | 65.0% | 97.1% |
| 140 | Phoenix, Arizona | C- | 71.6 | 104.8 | 19.8 | 28.9 | 23.4% | 91.1% |
| 141 | Akron, Ohio | C- | 71.1 | 94.0 | 12.3 | 28.0 | 47.0% | 97.3% |
| 142 | Las Vegas, Nevada | C- | 70.7 | 93.9 | 18.0 | 27.2 | 36.0% | 94.4% |
| 143 | Columbus, Ohio† | D+ | 69.8 | 72.0 | 19.7 | 27.2 | 35.0% | 98.2% |
| 144 | Detroit, Michigan | D+ | 69.4 | 90.2 | 13.0 | 29.7 | 23.3% | 99.1% |
| 145 | Columbus, Georgia† | D+ | 69.2 | 72.0 | 19.7 | 27.2 | 40.4% | 96.9% |
| 146 | Honolulu, Hawaii | D+ | 68.2 | 71.4 | 13.4 | 99.4 | 88.6% | 98.0% |
| 147 | Mobile, Alabama | D+ | 68.1 | 84.2 | 15.9 | 38.4 | 72.5% | 98.1% |
| 148 | Boise, Idaho | D | 67.1 | 92.4 | 11.2 | 39.3 | 29.8% | 96.7% |
| 149 | Toledo, Ohio | F | 49.7 | 84.4 | 12.7 | 32.0 | 48.4% | 36.0% |
| 150 | Anchorage, Alaska | F | 34.9 | 49.1 | 12.2 | 53.8 | 4.0% | 0.0% |
City-by-City Broadband Breakdown
A-Tier Cities (Excellent)
Rank 1 of 150
Pembroke Pines, Florida
Overall score 99.6 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.1% | |
| Fiber | 97.9% | |
| Download | 208.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 39.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 6.0 ms |
Rank 2 of 150
Cape Coral, Florida
Overall score 99.0 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.1% | |
| Fiber | 94.1% | |
| Download | 207.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 72.4 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.8 ms |
Rank 3 of 150
Richmond, Virginia
Overall score 98.8 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.6% | |
| Fiber | 91.9% | |
| Download | 141.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 38.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 11.4 ms |
Rank 4 of 150
Jersey City, New Jersey
Overall score 98.8 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.6% | |
| Fiber | 90.7% | |
| Download | 127.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 35.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.1 ms |
Rank 5 of 150
Yonkers, New York
Overall score 98.5 / 100
| Access | 98.0% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.8% | |
| Fiber | 96.9% | |
| Download | 217.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 46.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 5.6 ms |
Rank 6 of 150
Frisco, Texas
Overall score 98.0 / 100
| Access | 98.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.2% | |
| Fiber | 85.2% | |
| Download | 204.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 90.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.1 ms |
Rank 7 of 150
Miami, Florida
Overall score 97.9 / 100
| Access | 99.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.7% | |
| Fiber | 81.4% | |
| Download | 137.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 33.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 4.4 ms |
Rank 8 of 150
Hialeah, Florida
Overall score 97.8 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.5% | |
| Fiber | 84.2% | |
| Download | 124.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 37.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 5.4 ms |
Rank 9 of 150
Arlington, Texas
Overall score 97.7 / 100
| Access | 98.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.1% | |
| Fiber | 82.7% | |
| Download | 149.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 47.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.1 ms |
Rank 10 of 150
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Overall score 97.6 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.2% | |
| Fiber | 58.9% | |
| Download | 151.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 37.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.3 ms |
Rank 11 of 150
Plano, Texas
Overall score 97.6 / 100
| Access | 97.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.3% | |
| Fiber | 89.6% | |
| Download | 170.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 86.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.6 ms |
Rank 12 of 150
Cary, North Carolina
Overall score 97.4 / 100
| Access | 98.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.2% | |
| Fiber | 94.2% | |
| Download | 206.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 40.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.4 ms |
Rank 13 of 150
Clarksville, Tennessee
Overall score 97.4 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.8% | |
| Fiber | 99.7% | |
| Download | 265.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 79.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 16.0 ms |
Rank 14 of 150
Fayetteville, North Carolina†
Overall score 97.2 / 100
| Access | 98.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.5% | |
| Fiber | 77.5% | |
| Download | 601.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 714.4 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 10.8 ms |
Rank 15 of 150
Aurora, Colorado†
Overall score 97.2 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.3% | |
| Fiber | 48.5% | |
| Download | 166.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 36.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.7 ms |
Rank 16 of 150
Garland, Texas
Overall score 97.1 / 100
| Access | 97.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.0% | |
| Fiber | 90.9% | |
| Download | 159.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 70.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 9.1 ms |
Rank 17 of 150
Fort Worth, Texas
Overall score 97.0 / 100
| Access | 99.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 93.8% | |
| Fiber | 82.2% | |
| Download | 157.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 58.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 9.5 ms |
Rank 18 of 150
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Overall score 97.0 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.2% | |
| Fiber | 59.5% | |
| Download | 192.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 55.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.8 ms |
Rank 19 of 150
Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Overall score 96.8 / 100
| Access | 98.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.5% | |
| Fiber | 69.0% | |
| Download | 276.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 57.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 9.4 ms |
Rank 20 of 150
Grand Prairie, Texas
Overall score 96.5 / 100
| Access | 97.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.2% | |
| Fiber | 84.7% | |
| Download | 130.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 39.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 11.8 ms |
Rank 21 of 150
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Overall score 96.5 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.9% | |
| Fiber | 95.8% | |
| Download | 156.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 40.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 18.0 ms |
Rank 22 of 150
Long Beach, California
Overall score 96.3 / 100
| Access | 96.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.7% | |
| Fiber | 81.4% | |
| Download | 198.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 37.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 6.7 ms |
Rank 23 of 150
Mckinney, Texas
Overall score 96.3 / 100
| Access | 97.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 93.6% | |
| Fiber | 80.8% | |
| Download | 225.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 88.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.3 ms |
Rank 24 of 150
Aurora, Illinois†
Overall score 96.2 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.5% | |
| Fiber | 29.9% | |
| Download | 166.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 36.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.7 ms |
Rank 25 of 150
Irving, Texas
Overall score 96.1 / 100
| Access | 96.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.3% | |
| Fiber | 80.0% | |
| Download | 187.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 78.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.2 ms |
Rank 26 of 150
Chesapeake, Virginia
Overall score 96.0 / 100
| Access | 96.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.0% | |
| Fiber | 85.1% | |
| Download | 138.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 38.4 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 12.3 ms |
Rank 27 of 150
Fremont, California
Overall score 96.0 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.0% | |
| Fiber | 32.9% | |
| Download | 128.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 37.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.9 ms |
Rank 28 of 150
Elk Grove, California
Overall score 96.0 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.1% | |
| Fiber | 66.6% | |
| Download | 147.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 37.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 14.3 ms |
Rank 29 of 150
Lincoln, Nebraska
Overall score 95.9 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.2% | |
| Fiber | 97.1% | |
| Download | 204.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 180.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 16.7 ms |
Rank 30 of 150
Chula Vista, California
Overall score 95.8 / 100
| Access | 96.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.3% | |
| Fiber | 70.3% | |
| Download | 142.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 41.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 10.1 ms |
Rank 31 of 150
Huntington Beach, California
Overall score 95.7 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.5% | |
| Fiber | 68.6% | |
| Download | 197.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 32.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.2 ms |
Rank 32 of 150
Oxnard, California
Overall score 95.2 / 100
| Access | 96.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.3% | |
| Fiber | 60.0% | |
| Download | 270.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 40.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.9 ms |
Rank 33 of 150
Irvine, California
Overall score 95.2 / 100
| Access | 97.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.2% | |
| Fiber | 45.4% | |
| Download | 184.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 55.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 7.5 ms |
Rank 34 of 150
Dallas, Texas
Overall score 95.2 / 100
| Access | 97.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.6% | |
| Fiber | 81.0% | |
| Download | 121.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 37.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 2.8 ms |
Rank 35 of 150
Washington, D.C.
Overall score 94.6 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.8% | |
| Fiber | 86.3% | |
| Download | 123.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 33.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 14.9 ms |
Rank 36 of 150
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Overall score 94.6 / 100
| Access | 99.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.9% | |
| Fiber | 60.3% | |
| Download | 168.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 39.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 17.0 ms |
Rank 37 of 150
Tampa, Florida
Overall score 93.7 / 100
| Access | 96.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.0% | |
| Fiber | 86.3% | |
| Download | 157.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 33.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 14.1 ms |
Rank 38 of 150
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Overall score 93.5 / 100
| Access | 96.0% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.9% | |
| Fiber | 70.4% | |
| Download | 155.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 53.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 15.0 ms |
Rank 39 of 150
Houston, Texas
Overall score 93.4 / 100
| Access | 99.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.1% | |
| Fiber | 78.0% | |
| Download | 114.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 33.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.0 ms |
Rank 40 of 150
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Overall score 93.0 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.0% | |
| Fiber | 74.3% | |
| Download | 136.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 39.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 21.5 ms |
Rank 41 of 150
Peoria, Arizona
Overall score 92.9 / 100
| Access | 97.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.2% | |
| Fiber | 34.2% | |
| Download | 196.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 71.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 12.8 ms |
Rank 42 of 150
Montgomery, Alabama
Overall score 92.8 / 100
| Access | 95.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 92.8% | |
| Fiber | 51.5% | |
| Download | 186.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 36.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 12.6 ms |
Rank 43 of 150
Lexington, Kentucky
Overall score 92.6 / 100
| Access | 98.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.8% | |
| Fiber | 90.4% | |
| Download | 169.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 50.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 24.2 ms |
Rank 44 of 150
Denver, Colorado
Overall score 92.2 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.5% | |
| Fiber | 70.4% | |
| Download | 118.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 28.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.0 ms |
Rank 45 of 150
Fresno, California
Overall score 91.8 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.5% | |
| Fiber | 36.6% | |
| Download | 135.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 33.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 16.0 ms |
Rank 46 of 150
Lubbock, Texas
Overall score 91.4 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 88.2% | |
| Fiber | 82.5% | |
| Download | 225.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 41.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 19.9 ms |
Rank 47 of 150
Chicago, Illinois
Overall score 91.4 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.4% | |
| Fiber | 32.6% | |
| Download | 118.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 30.4 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 4.7 ms |
Rank 48 of 150
Henderson, Nevada
Overall score 91.1 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.7% | |
| Fiber | 39.9% | |
| Download | 151.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 30.4 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 15.4 ms |
Rank 49 of 150
Santa Clarita, California
Overall score 91.0 / 100
| Access | 95.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.5% | |
| Fiber | 19.8% | |
| Download | 160.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 32.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.7 ms |
Rank 50 of 150
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Overall score 91.0 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.9% | |
| Fiber | 99.6% | |
| Download | 117.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 34.4 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 24.6 ms |
Rank 51 of 150
Durham, North Carolina
Overall score 90.8 / 100
| Access | 97.0% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.4% | |
| Fiber | 83.5% | |
| Download | 211.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 30.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 16.6 ms |
Rank 52 of 150
Madison, Wisconsin
Overall score 90.7 / 100
| Access | 97.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.1% | |
| Fiber | 62.7% | |
| Download | 198.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 38.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 23.3 ms |
Rank 53 of 150
Austin, Texas
Overall score 90.7 / 100
| Access | 98.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.3% | |
| Fiber | 71.3% | |
| Download | 153.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 27.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.6 ms |
Rank 54 of 150
Boston, Massachusetts
Overall score 90.5 / 100
| Access | 99.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.0% | |
| Fiber | 63.8% | |
| Download | 96.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 34.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 6.5 ms |
Rank 55 of 150
Tacoma, Washington
Overall score 90.2 / 100
| Access | 99.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.3% | |
| Fiber | 40.9% | |
| Download | 128.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 24.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.7 ms |
Rank 56 of 150
Cincinnati, Ohio
Overall score 90.2 / 100
| Access | 98.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.2% | |
| Fiber | 92.4% | |
| Download | 156.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 54.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 30.5 ms |
B-Tier Cities (Good)
Rank 57 of 150
San Francisco, California
Overall score 89.9 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.9% | |
| Fiber | 56.8% | |
| Download | 105.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 30.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.0 ms |
Rank 58 of 150
Amarillo, Texas
Overall score 89.9 / 100
| Access | 99.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 93.3% | |
| Fiber | 89.4% | |
| Download | 132.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 35.4 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 27.8 ms |
Rank 59 of 150
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Overall score 89.8 / 100
| Access | 99.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.0% | |
| Fiber | 52.1% | |
| Download | 152.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 34.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 26.6 ms |
Rank 60 of 150
Des Moines, Iowa
Overall score 89.8 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.8% | |
| Fiber | 91.1% | |
| Download | 169.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 69.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 32.7 ms |
Rank 61 of 150
Chandler, Arizona
Overall score 89.7 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.9% | |
| Fiber | 29.8% | |
| Download | 149.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 49.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.6 ms |
Rank 62 of 150
Ontario, California
Overall score 89.7 / 100
| Access | 95.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 91.8% | |
| Fiber | 80.3% | |
| Download | 145.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 26.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 10.1 ms |
Rank 63 of 150
Reno, Nevada
Overall score 89.5 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.1% | |
| Fiber | 41.5% | |
| Download | 176.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 81.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 23.9 ms |
Rank 64 of 150
Moreno Valley, California
Overall score 89.5 / 100
| Access | 98.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.3% | |
| Fiber | 69.4% | |
| Download | 149.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 10.9 ms |
Rank 65 of 150
Cleveland, Ohio
Overall score 89.5 / 100
| Access | 98.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.6% | |
| Fiber | 63.8% | |
| Download | 147.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 63.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 28.4 ms |
Rank 66 of 150
Eugene, Oregon
Overall score 89.4 / 100
| Access | 98.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.4% | |
| Fiber | 42.3% | |
| Download | 117.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 33.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 16.7 ms |
Rank 67 of 150
Rochester, New York
Overall score 89.2 / 100
| Access | 97.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.7% | |
| Fiber | 70.9% | |
| Download | 137.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 64.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 28.4 ms |
Rank 68 of 150
Saint Petersburg, Florida
Overall score 89.2 / 100
| Access | 96.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.0% | |
| Fiber | 46.9% | |
| Download | 225.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 27.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.9 ms |
Rank 69 of 150
Newport News, Virginia
Overall score 89.2 / 100
| Access | 97.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.7% | |
| Fiber | 90.9% | |
| Download | 119.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 26.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.4 ms |
Rank 70 of 150
Gilbert, Arizona
Overall score 89.1 / 100
| Access | 99.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.8% | |
| Fiber | 33.1% | |
| Download | 136.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 31.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 18.9 ms |
Rank 71 of 150
Huntsville, Alabama
Overall score 89.1 / 100
| Access | 99.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.1% | |
| Fiber | 88.6% | |
| Download | 114.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 50.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 26.2 ms |
Rank 72 of 150
San Jose, California
Overall score 88.9 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.7% | |
| Fiber | 41.5% | |
| Download | 116.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 26.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 8.2 ms |
Rank 73 of 150
New York, New York
Overall score 88.2 / 100
| Access | 96.0% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 91.6% | |
| Fiber | 34.4% | |
| Download | 120.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 30.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 1.8 ms |
Rank 74 of 150
San Antonio, Texas
Overall score 88.1 / 100
| Access | 98.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.4% | |
| Fiber | 85.5% | |
| Download | 135.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 23.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 17.4 ms |
Rank 75 of 150
Tallahassee, Florida
Overall score 88.0 / 100
| Access | 95.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.7% | |
| Fiber | 63.7% | |
| Download | 117.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 39.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 21.1 ms |
Rank 76 of 150
Scottsdale, Arizona
Overall score 87.7 / 100
| Access | 97.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 92.4% | |
| Fiber | 28.5% | |
| Download | 135.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 34.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.8 ms |
Rank 77 of 150
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Overall score 87.7 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.4% | |
| Fiber | 50.7% | |
| Download | 108.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 36.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.6 ms |
Rank 78 of 150
Glendale, California†
Overall score 87.4 / 100
| Access | 97.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.6% | |
| Fiber | 29.9% | |
| Download | 149.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 10.1 ms |
Rank 79 of 150
Modesto, California
Overall score 87.3 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.7% | |
| Fiber | 23.5% | |
| Download | 117.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 29.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.8 ms |
Rank 80 of 150
Spokane, Washington
Overall score 86.8 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.1% | |
| Fiber | 43.3% | |
| Download | 116.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 35.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 24.5 ms |
Rank 81 of 150
Glendale, Arizona†
Overall score 86.7 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 93.5% | |
| Fiber | 20.5% | |
| Download | 149.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 10.1 ms |
Rank 82 of 150
Bakersfield, California
Overall score 86.2 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.1% | |
| Fiber | 32.9% | |
| Download | 196.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.6 ms |
Rank 83 of 150
Jacksonville, Florida
Overall score 86.0 / 100
| Access | 99.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.9% | |
| Fiber | 64.8% | |
| Download | 115.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 28.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.9 ms |
Rank 84 of 150
Seattle, Washington
Overall score 85.7 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.6% | |
| Fiber | 78.7% | |
| Download | 98.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 23.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 5.3 ms |
Rank 85 of 150
Saint Louis, Missouri
Overall score 85.7 / 100
| Access | 98.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.0% | |
| Fiber | 72.2% | |
| Download | 107.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 30.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 20.7 ms |
Rank 86 of 150
Salem, Oregon
Overall score 85.5 / 100
| Access | 97.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.6% | |
| Fiber | 16.9% | |
| Download | 121.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 27.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.8 ms |
Rank 87 of 150
Vancouver, Washington
Overall score 85.5 / 100
| Access | 99.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.0% | |
| Fiber | 20.8% | |
| Download | 117.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 24.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.5 ms |
Rank 88 of 150
Birmingham, Alabama
Overall score 84.9 / 100
| Access | 97.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.8% | |
| Fiber | 66.3% | |
| Download | 124.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 37.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 40.6 ms |
Rank 89 of 150
Orlando, Florida
Overall score 84.5 / 100
| Access | 97.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.6% | |
| Fiber | 66.6% | |
| Download | 143.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 18.7 ms |
Rank 90 of 150
Oakland, California
Overall score 84.1 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.3% | |
| Fiber | 89.0% | |
| Download | 97.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 12.1 ms |
Rank 91 of 150
San Bernardino, California
Overall score 84.0 / 100
| Access | 95.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 93.7% | |
| Fiber | 75.1% | |
| Download | 131.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 16.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.1 ms |
Rank 92 of 150
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Overall score 83.9 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.9% | |
| Fiber | 95.2% | |
| Download | 101.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 21.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 14.4 ms |
Rank 93 of 150
New Orleans, Louisiana
Overall score 83.6 / 100
| Access | 98.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 93.5% | |
| Fiber | 44.5% | |
| Download | 94.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 47.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 19.1 ms |
Rank 94 of 150
Baltimore, Maryland
Overall score 83.5 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.2% | |
| Fiber | 11.7% | |
| Download | 114.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 12.0 ms |
Rank 95 of 150
Greensboro, North Carolina
Overall score 83.3 / 100
| Access | 97.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.3% | |
| Fiber | 70.4% | |
| Download | 240.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 21.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.6 ms |
Rank 96 of 150
North Las Vegas, Nevada
Overall score 83.0 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.8% | |
| Fiber | 36.2% | |
| Download | 113.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 23.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 16.0 ms |
Rank 97 of 150
Stockton, California
Overall score 83.0 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.0% | |
| Fiber | 34.8% | |
| Download | 112.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 23.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 15.7 ms |
Rank 98 of 150
Omaha, Nebraska
Overall score 82.9 / 100
| Access | 98.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.7% | |
| Fiber | 81.4% | |
| Download | 119.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 30.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 36.7 ms |
Rank 99 of 150
San Diego, California
Overall score 82.6 / 100
| Access | 97.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.6% | |
| Fiber | 40.9% | |
| Download | 116.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 19.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 11.9 ms |
Rank 100 of 150
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Overall score 82.6 / 100
| Access | 97.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.2% | |
| Fiber | 72.6% | |
| Download | 110.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 19.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 13.2 ms |
Rank 101 of 150
Tempe, Arizona
Overall score 82.4 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 89.5% | |
| Fiber | 16.7% | |
| Download | 130.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 30.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 28.5 ms |
Rank 102 of 150
Santa Ana, California
Overall score 81.9 / 100
| Access | 97.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.6% | |
| Fiber | 46.5% | |
| Download | 119.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 15.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 11.9 ms |
Rank 103 of 150
Anaheim, California
Overall score 81.7 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.0% | |
| Fiber | 34.3% | |
| Download | 116.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 16.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 11.5 ms |
Rank 104 of 150
Newark, New Jersey
Overall score 81.6 / 100
| Access | 96.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.3% | |
| Fiber | 93.5% | |
| Download | 102.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 21.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 14.1 ms |
Rank 105 of 150
El Paso, Texas
Overall score 81.4 / 100
| Access | 97.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.3% | |
| Fiber | 55.3% | |
| Download | 168.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 19.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.8 ms |
Rank 106 of 150
Tucson, Arizona
Overall score 81.3 / 100
| Access | 98.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 89.3% | |
| Fiber | 16.3% | |
| Download | 116.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 29.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 21.9 ms |
Rank 107 of 150
Salt Lake City, Utah
Overall score 80.8 / 100
| Access | 99.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.8% | |
| Fiber | 87.5% | |
| Download | 107.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 28.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 33.6 ms |
Rank 108 of 150
Buffalo, New York
Overall score 80.7 / 100
| Access | 98.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.4% | |
| Fiber | 76.8% | |
| Download | 127.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 21.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 29.6 ms |
Rank 109 of 150
Winston Salem, North Carolina
Overall score 80.5 / 100
| Access | 97.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.2% | |
| Fiber | 61.0% | |
| Download | 134.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 18.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 25.0 ms |
Rank 110 of 150
Raleigh, North Carolina
Overall score 80.3 / 100
| Access | 98.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.1% | |
| Fiber | 86.8% | |
| Download | 106.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 23.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 24.0 ms |
Rank 111 of 150
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Overall score 80.2 / 100
| Access | 95.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 93.4% | |
| Fiber | 60.7% | |
| Download | 113.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 23.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 20.1 ms |
Rank 112 of 150
Portland, Oregon
Overall score 80.0 / 100
| Access | 99.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.2% | |
| Fiber | 77.9% | |
| Download | 108.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 21.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 25.0 ms |
C-Tier Cities (Average)
Rank 113 of 150
Indianapolis, Indiana
Overall score 79.8 / 100
| Access | 99.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.8% | |
| Fiber | 68.9% | |
| Download | 112.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 20.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 25.1 ms |
Rank 114 of 150
Worcester, Massachusetts
Overall score 79.7 / 100
| Access | 96.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.5% | |
| Fiber | 27.8% | |
| Download | 155.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 16.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 20.0 ms |
Rank 115 of 150
Atlanta, Georgia
Overall score 79.6 / 100
| Access | 99.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.3% | |
| Fiber | 76.9% | |
| Download | 95.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 20.1 ms |
Rank 116 of 150
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Overall score 79.5 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.7% | |
| Fiber | 72.6% | |
| Download | 100.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 23.4 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 24.9 ms |
Rank 117 of 150
Augusta, Georgia
Overall score 79.0 / 100
| Access | 99.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.4% | |
| Fiber | 34.7% | |
| Download | 113.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 23.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 27.4 ms |
Rank 118 of 150
Los Angeles, California
Overall score 78.9 / 100
| Access | 96.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.5% | |
| Fiber | 49.6% | |
| Download | 98.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 19.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 9.3 ms |
Rank 119 of 150
Mesa, Arizona
Overall score 78.8 / 100
| Access | 95.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 85.2% | |
| Fiber | 44.6% | |
| Download | 117.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 29.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 26.8 ms |
Rank 120 of 150
Sacramento, California
Overall score 78.0 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.7% | |
| Fiber | 50.1% | |
| Download | 95.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 18.6 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 15.8 ms |
Rank 121 of 150
Corpus Christi, Texas
Overall score 77.4 / 100
| Access | 99.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.4% | |
| Fiber | 74.0% | |
| Download | 147.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 12.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 36.9 ms |
Rank 122 of 150
Nashville, Tennessee
Overall score 77.4 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.3% | |
| Fiber | 81.3% | |
| Download | 100.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 24.3 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 32.0 ms |
Rank 123 of 150
Riverside, California
Overall score 77.3 / 100
| Access | 96.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.8% | |
| Fiber | 30.0% | |
| Download | 126.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 12.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 25.0 ms |
Rank 124 of 150
Norfolk, Virginia
Overall score 77.3 / 100
| Access | 97.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.7% | |
| Fiber | 73.5% | |
| Download | 114.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 15.7 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 25.2 ms |
Rank 125 of 150
Louisville, Kentucky
Overall score 76.5 / 100
| Access | 99.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.9% | |
| Fiber | 79.9% | |
| Download | 117.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 11.9 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 31.4 ms |
Rank 126 of 150
Kansas City, Missouri
Overall score 76.2 / 100
| Access | 99.0% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.5% | |
| Fiber | 94.1% | |
| Download | 113.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 19.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 36.8 ms |
Rank 127 of 150
Providence, Rhode Island
Overall score 75.8 / 100
| Access | 97.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.8% | |
| Fiber | 91.7% | |
| Download | 90.7 Mbps | |
| Upload | 17.1 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 19.6 ms |
Rank 128 of 150
Memphis, Tennessee
Overall score 75.8 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.4% | |
| Fiber | 50.6% | |
| Download | 101.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 21.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 25.0 ms |
Rank 129 of 150
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Overall score 75.4 / 100
| Access | 98.0% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.0% | |
| Fiber | 72.7% | |
| Download | 96.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 19.8 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 24.5 ms |
Rank 130 of 150
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Overall score 75.3 / 100
| Access | 99.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.1% | |
| Fiber | 10.9% | |
| Download | 97.6 Mbps | |
| Upload | 18.2 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.0 ms |
Rank 131 of 150
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Overall score 75.0 / 100
| Access | 98.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.2% | |
| Fiber | 64.9% | |
| Download | 94.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 18.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 26.0 ms |
Rank 132 of 150
Brownsville, Texas
Overall score 74.8 / 100
| Access | 98.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.2% | |
| Fiber | 37.5% | |
| Download | 136.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 25.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.0 ms |
Rank 133 of 150
Fontana, California
Overall score 73.9 / 100
| Access | 97.0% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.8% | |
| Fiber | 24.5% | |
| Download | 95.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 16.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 12.0 ms |
Rank 134 of 150
Laredo, Texas
Overall score 73.6 / 100
| Access | 96.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 91.8% | |
| Fiber | 42.8% | |
| Download | 160.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 28.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 24.0 ms |
Rank 135 of 150
Knoxville, Tennessee
Overall score 73.3 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.1% | |
| Fiber | 89.7% | |
| Download | 101.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 22.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 28.0 ms |
Rank 136 of 150
Charlotte, North Carolina
Overall score 73.1 / 100
| Access | 98.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.0% | |
| Fiber | 81.7% | |
| Download | 95.3 Mbps | |
| Upload | 18.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 23.0 ms |
Rank 137 of 150
Wichita, Kansas
Overall score 72.2 / 100
| Access | 98.3% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 95.1% | |
| Fiber | 79.1% | |
| Download | 74.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 15.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 30.0 ms |
Rank 138 of 150
Overland Park, Kansas
Overall score 72.0 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.9% | |
| Fiber | 99.7% | |
| Download | 85.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 16.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 28.0 ms |
Rank 139 of 150
Little Rock, Arkansas
Overall score 72.0 / 100
| Access | 97.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.1% | |
| Fiber | 65.0% | |
| Download | 92.5 Mbps | |
| Upload | 17.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 29.0 ms |
Rank 140 of 150
Phoenix, Arizona
Overall score 71.6 / 100
| Access | 99.7% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 91.1% | |
| Fiber | 23.4% | |
| Download | 104.8 Mbps | |
| Upload | 21.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 24.0 ms |
Rank 141 of 150
Akron, Ohio
Overall score 71.1 / 100
| Access | 97.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 97.3% | |
| Fiber | 47.0% | |
| Download | 94.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 18.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 32.0 ms |
Rank 142 of 150
Las Vegas, Nevada
Overall score 70.7 / 100
| Access | 99.9% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 94.4% | |
| Fiber | 36.0% | |
| Download | 93.9 Mbps | |
| Upload | 17.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 22.0 ms |
D-Tier Cities (Below Average)
Rank 143 of 150
Columbus, Ohio†
Overall score 69.8 / 100
| Access | 98.8% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.2% | |
| Fiber | 35.0% | |
| Download | 72.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 14.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 35.0 ms |
Rank 144 of 150
Detroit, Michigan
Overall score 69.4 / 100
| Access | 99.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 99.1% | |
| Fiber | 23.3% | |
| Download | 90.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 15.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 31.0 ms |
Rank 145 of 150
Columbus, Georgia†
Overall score 69.2 / 100
| Access | 97.5% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.9% | |
| Fiber | 40.4% | |
| Download | 72.0 Mbps | |
| Upload | 13.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 34.0 ms |
Rank 146 of 150
Honolulu, Hawaii
Overall score 68.2 / 100
| Access | 98.1% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.0% | |
| Fiber | 88.6% | |
| Download | 71.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 14.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 45.0 ms |
Rank 147 of 150
Mobile, Alabama
Overall score 68.1 / 100
| Access | 98.4% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 98.1% | |
| Fiber | 72.5% | |
| Download | 84.2 Mbps | |
| Upload | 15.5 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 38.0 ms |
Rank 148 of 150
Boise, Idaho
Overall score 67.1 / 100
| Access | 98.0% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 96.7% | |
| Fiber | 29.8% | |
| Download | 92.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 16.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 33.0 ms |
F-Tier Cities (Poor)
Rank 149 of 150
Toledo, Ohio
Overall score 49.7 / 100
| Access | 99.6% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 36.0% | |
| Fiber | 48.4% | |
| Download | 84.4 Mbps | |
| Upload | 12.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 36.0 ms |
Rank 150 of 150
Anchorage, Alaska
Overall score 34.9 / 100
| Access | 99.2% | |
| Low-priced plan access | 0.0% | |
| Fiber | 4.0% | |
| Download | 49.1 Mbps | |
| Upload | 8.0 Mbps | |
| Latency (RTT) | 65.0 ms |
Policy Recommendations for City Broadband
1. Urban broadband policy is affordability policy.
With availability effectively universal across major cities (98.5% average access), the remaining urban divide is almost entirely economic. Toledo and Anchorage show that a city can be fully wired and still fail on price. City governments negotiating franchise agreements, and states enforcing BEAD’s low-cost service option, should treat published low-priced tiers as the primary metric of success.
2. Fix the multi-dwelling-unit bottleneck.
The consistent underperformance of dense urban cores relative to their own suburbs (Dallas vs. its metroplex, New York vs. Yonkers, Newark vs. Jersey City) points at apartment and condo buildings, where exclusive wiring arrangements and retrofit costs stall fiber. Streamlined building-access rules and MDU retrofit incentives would do more for big-city broadband than any new subsidy.
3. Treat uploads as urban infrastructure.
Nearly one in four large cities still posts median uploads below the FCC’s 20 Mbps floor. The cities at the top of our rankings, and the remote-work households choosing between them, increasingly treat upstream capacity as non-negotiable.
4. Study the mid-size winners.
Clarksville, Lincoln, and the DFW suburbs did not get lucky; they got built. Municipal utility fiber, cooperative overbuilds, and permitting environments that welcome competitive construction are replicable policy choices, and our data suggests they work.
Methodology
This inaugural city study applies the same weighted methodology as our annual Best & Worst States for Broadband report to the 150 most populous U.S. cities:
Category weights
Wired low-priced access 30%
Median RTT latency 10%
Median download speed 10%
Median upload speed 10%
Fiber-optic access 5%
Access
To assess internet access, we look at three metrics: access to wired or fixed wireless broadband internet, access to low-priced broadband internet, and access to fiber-optic service.
The first two access metrics are the most highly weighted elements in our methodology (making up 65% of the total score) because they both serve as a prerequisite for anything else. If broadband internet is only available to a select few, or if it is so cost prohibitive that only a few can use it, then the quality would be of considerably less importance.
We also consider access to fiber-optic service because it is the fastest and most reliable internet technology available today.
Quality
To assess internet quality, we analyzed download speed, upload speed, and round trip time, which is a measure of latency. Depending on what you use the internet for, any one of those three metrics could be the most important thing to you.
People who play a lot of online competitive video games may consider latency to be the most important, a live streamer or business owner might prioritize upload speed, while an everyday user who mostly uses the internet for watching streaming services could be most interested in download speeds. You can use our bandwidth calculator to find out what’s right for you.
We analyzed over 160 million speed tests from the M-Labs NDT Data Set between January 1st and June 15th, 2026 for their upload speed, download speed, and round trip time, aggregated to the city level.
Scoring
We gave every city a score from 0 to 100 for each of the six categories, and then weighted and added them together to get a final score from 0 to 100.
The three access categories are percentages that already range from 0 to 100, so we did not modify those for their score.
We calculated the three quality categories by linearly mapping each city’s median speed to a scale from 0 to 100. For each metric, we set the speed which corresponds to a score of 100 and 59 (RTT: 10 ms and 20 ms; download: 130 Mbps and 110 Mbps; upload: 35 Mbps and 28 Mbps), and we scaled the intermediate values proportionally.
Looking Ahead: Tracking These 150 Cities Next Year
This report establishes the baseline. Starting next year, we’ll track how every one of these 150 cities moves: which urban cores close the gap with their suburbs, whether the Arizona affordability cluster improves, and whether BEAD-era construction and its competitive spillover reach the cities that need it most. Paired with our state rankings, the two studies now let readers, journalists, and policymakers see American broadband at both altitudes: the policy map and the street map.
About This Study
BroadbandNow Research produces comprehensive analyses of America’s broadband landscape to inform policymakers, journalists, and consumers. Our inaugural Best and Worst Cities study extends our long-running state rankings to the local level, continuing our commitment to data-driven insights that advance the goal of universal connectivity.
For more information, data requests, or media inquiries, visit broadbandnow.com/research.
How to cite this report
BroadbandNow Research. “The Best and Worst Cities for Broadband 2026.” [PUBLICATION DATE] 2026.
Need more data or expert commentary?
We can provide city-level data, custom cuts, and expert commentary for your story. Our team typically responds within one business day. Reach us at press@broadbandnow.com.
