100+ Google Local Pack Statistics for 2026 (Healthcare Map Pack Benchmarks)

This benchmark report compiles Google Local Pack (map pack / 3-pack) statistics with a healthcare focus: how often the pack appears, where the clicks go, and, using Stethon Digital Marketing’s own 191-city research database, exactly what review volume, rating, and website presence it takes for a medical practice to hold a top 3 position, city by city. Research-first reference designed to be citable, not a promise of results.

Produced by Stethon Digital Marketing (healthcare performance marketing). Coverage window: 2019 through 2026, with each statistic labeled by dataset year.

Table of contents

• US Google Local Pack Statistics (Benchmarks for 2026)
• 100+ Google Local Pack Statistics for Clinics in 2026
• Methodology of this Local Pack statistics report
• FAQ
• What this means for your clinic

US Google Local Pack Statistics (Benchmarks for 2026)

Signal	KPI	Benchmark	Scope notes	Primary source
Pack prevalence	Local searches returning a Local Pack	39%	540 queries, 3 cities, 6 industries	Whitespark (2025)
Pack CTR	Position 1 / 2 / 3	17.6% / 15.4% / 15.1%	Aggregated estimate	First Page Sage (2025)
Entry floor	Avg reviews, top 3 chiropractic	295.9	51 US cities	Stethon (2026)
Entry floor	Avg reviews, top 3 mental health	100.6	56 US cities	Stethon (2026)
Rating floor	Avg top 3, chiro vs MH	4.91 vs 4.23	Same scans	Stethon (2026)
Website	Top 3 with a working site	91.7-93.8%	Both specialties	Stethon (2026)
Hardest metro	Specialties with Dallas in top-10	18 of 22	191-city index	Stethon (2026)
Ranking model	Google’s stated factors	Relevance, distance, prominence	Official	Google

How clinics use this snapshot: the Local Pack compresses local search into three slots, so treat it as a binary objective per query: a top 3 position or effectively nothing. Benchmark your review count and rating against the specialty floor below, then check whether your metro sits in the saturated tier before committing a runway.

100+ Google Local Pack Statistics for Clinics in 2026

A) Local Pack prevalence and click-through

Quote-ready summary: the pack shows on roughly two in five local searches and the visible three positions each pull 15-18% click-through, which makes position four functionally invisible.

• 1. 39% of local business searches returned a Local Pack in a 540-query study across three cities and six industries. (Whitespark, 2025)
• 2. The commonly repeated “93% of local searches show a pack” figure has no traceable primary source and should not be used for planning. (Verification note, 2026)
• 3. Local Pack position 1 carries an estimated 17.6% click-through rate. (First Page Sage, 2025)
• 4. Position 2 carries ~15.4% and position 3 ~15.1%. (First Page Sage, 2025)
• 5. The visible three pack positions combine for ~48.1% estimated click share. (Calculated: 17.6+15.4+15.1)
• 6. The position 1 to position 3 CTR drop is only ~2.5 points, so all three visible slots are commercially valuable. (Calculated)
• 7. Reaching position 4 requires a tap on “more places” that most searchers never make, which is why the pack is a top 3 problem. (First Page Sage, 2025; derived framing)
• 8. Google names the pack’s ranking factors directly: relevance, distance, and prominence. (Google Business Profile Help)
• 9. Review count and rating feed the prominence factor, which is the main reason review floors predict pack membership. (Google; Stethon, 2026)
• 10. 80% of consumers search for a local business at least weekly, the demand behind pack impressions. (SOCi, 2024)
• 11. Google reported 76% of nearby smartphone searchers visit a business within a day, the intent behind pack clicks. (Google, 2016)
• 12. The average Google Business Profile drew ~1,260 monthly views and ~59 actions in a 45,000-listing study, the volume a pack position sits on. (BrightLocal, 2019)

Stethon Digital Marketing commentary: the pack’s economics are binary at the query level. A practice holding third earns roughly the same attention as first-adjacent positions; a practice holding fourth competes for scraps. That asymmetry is what justifies review-velocity spending that would look excessive against ordinary diminishing-returns logic.

Related Article: 100+ Healthcare Advertising Statistics for Clinics in 2026

B) Chiropractic map pack entry benchmarks, city by city

Quote-ready summary: the chiropractic pack is the third hardest local healthcare arena measured, with a 295.9 average review floor, a 4.91 rating floor, and tier 1 metros demanding 400+ reviews.

• 13. The average top 3 pack chiropractic practice carries 295.9 reviews across 51 US cities (median 280.3). (Stethon, 2026)
• 14. The national average top 3 chiropractic rating is 4.91. (Stethon, 2026)
• 15. Seattle is the hardest chiropractic pack market measured, raw score 119.76, with top 3 practices averaging 176.3 reviews at 4.87. (Stethon, 2026)
• 16. Chicago ranks second (117.91) with 348.3 average top 3 reviews and a 559 maximum. (Stethon, 2026)
• 17. Dallas ranks third (107.51) with 384.3 average reviews and a 684 maximum. (Stethon, 2026)
• 18. Washington DC ranks fourth (106.00) with 489.7 average reviews and the sample’s 951-review maximum. (Stethon, 2026)
• 19. Los Angeles (104.87) averages 345.0 reviews at a 4.97 rating with a 726 maximum. (Stethon, 2026)
• 20. Denver (103.41) averages 387.3 reviews, also with a 726 maximum. (Stethon, 2026)
• 21. Indianapolis (98.75) averages 280.3 reviews at 4.97 with a 717 maximum. (Stethon, 2026)
• 22. San Diego (97.87) averages just 183.3 reviews but holds a 4.97 rating floor. (Stethon, 2026)
• 23. Charlotte (97.54) averages 481.0 reviews, the third-highest review saturation measured. (Stethon, 2026)
• 24. Nashville, the only tier 2 metro in the chiropractic top 10 (93.46), averages 489.7 reviews with an 843 maximum at 4.97. (Stethon, 2026)
• 25. Nine of the ten hardest chiropractic pack markets are tier 1 metros. (Stethon, 2026)
• 26. Eight of the ten hardest carry average top 3 ratings between 4.90 and 4.97. (Stethon, 2026)
• 27. The functional review floor for a new entrant in a tier 1 chiropractic market is roughly 400 reviews. (Stethon, 2026)
• 28. The easiest chiropractic market, Richmond (41.06), averages 33.0 top 3 reviews. (Stethon, 2026)
• 29. Erie (49.43) averages 53.7 and Orlando (52.27) averages 68.3 top 3 reviews. (Stethon, 2026)
• 30. Portland, the tier 2 outlier at rank 48, averages just 29.7 top 3 reviews. (Stethon, 2026)
• 31. The DC-to-Richmond average review ratio is ~14.8x inside the same specialty. (Calculated: 489.7/33.0)
• 32. Nine of the ten easiest chiropractic markets are tier 3. (Stethon, 2026)
• 33. Tier composition of the chiropractic sample: 18 tier 1 (35.3%), 6 tier 2 (11.8%), 27 tier 3 (52.9%). (Stethon, 2026)
• 34. At 20-25 reviews per month, a new chiropractic practice closes the 400-review tier 1 floor in 16-20 months. (Stethon, 2026)

Rank	Hardest chiropractic pack markets	Raw score	Avg reviews top 3	Max reviews	Avg rating
1	Seattle	119.76	176.3	313	4.87
2	Chicago	117.91	348.3	559	4.90
3	Dallas	107.51	384.3	684	4.90
4	Washington DC	106.00	489.7	951	4.93
5	Los Angeles	104.87	345.0	726	4.97
6	Denver	103.41	387.3	726	4.90
7	Indianapolis	98.75	280.3	717	4.97
8	San Diego	97.87	183.3	313	4.97
9	Charlotte	97.54	481.0	700	4.83
10	Nashville	93.46	489.7	843	4.97

C) Mental health map pack entry benchmarks, city by city

Quote-ready summary: the mental health pack is the second most open healthcare arena measured, with a 100.6 average review floor and a 4.23 rating floor, but San Antonio shows what happens when brand operators concentrate: a 432-review anomaly.

• 35. The average top 3 pack mental health practice carries 100.6 reviews across 56 US cities (median 83.3). (Stethon, 2026)
• 36. The national average top 3 mental health rating is 4.23. (Stethon, 2026)
• 37. San Antonio is the hardest mental health pack market (90.63), averaging 432.3 reviews with a 689 maximum. (Stethon, 2026)
• 38. New York ranks second (84.36) with 261.3 average reviews and a 752 maximum at 4.83. (Stethon, 2026)
• 39. Charlotte ranks third (82.56) with just 98.3 average reviews, showing tier weight can outrank raw volume. (Stethon, 2026)
• 40. Chicago (81.58) averages 138.3 reviews with a 404 maximum. (Stethon, 2026)
• 41. San Diego (79.41) averages 151.3 reviews at a 3.77 rating. (Stethon, 2026)
• 42. Austin (78.24) averages 146.0 reviews at 3.93. (Stethon, 2026)
• 43. Columbus (76.53) is the low-volume anomaly: 29.7 average reviews but a 4.97 rating. (Stethon, 2026)
• 44. Denver (74.76) averages 144.3 reviews at 3.97. (Stethon, 2026)
• 45. Washington DC (73.13) averages 98.3 reviews at 4.90. (Stethon, 2026)
• 46. Philadelphia (72.86) averages 102.0 reviews at 3.50, the lowest rating in any measured top 10. (Stethon, 2026)
• 47. All 10 of the hardest mental health pack markets are tier 1 metros. (Stethon, 2026)
• 48. Four of the ten hardest average below a 4.0 rating at the top 3. (Stethon, 2026)
• 49. The top-quartile mental health review floor is ~145 reviews. (Stethon, 2026)
• 50. Outside the San Antonio anomaly, the tier 1 mental health floor is roughly 140-180 reviews at a 4.2-4.5 rating. (Stethon, 2026)
• 51. Tier 2 mental health markets imply an 80-120 review floor; tier 3 markets 30-60. (Stethon, 2026)
• 52. The easiest mental health market, Bozeman (17.15), averages 2.0 top 3 reviews. (Stethon, 2026)
• 53. Clearwater (20.13) averages 2.3 and New Orleans (34.44) averages 7.3 top 3 reviews. (Stethon, 2026)
• 54. Boca Raton (30.18), Newark (32.71), and Jersey City (35.71) all sit below 16 average reviews. (Stethon, 2026)
• 55. Four of the ten easiest mental health markets have single-digit average top 3 review counts. (Stethon, 2026)
• 56. All 10 easiest mental health markets are tier 3. (Stethon, 2026)
• 57. The San Antonio average (432.3) is 4.3x the national mental health average (100.6). (Calculated)
• 58. The Bozeman-to-San-Antonio spread is ~216x on average review volume inside one specialty. (Calculated: 432.3/2.0)
• 59. Tier composition of the mental health sample: 18 tier 1 (32.1%), 9 tier 2 (16.1%), 29 tier 3 (51.8%). (Stethon, 2026)
• 60. At 10-15 reviews per month, the 145-review floor closes in 10-15 months; at 20-25 per month, 6-8 months. (Stethon, 2026)

Rank	Hardest mental health pack markets	Raw score	Avg reviews top 3	Max reviews	Avg rating
1	San Antonio	90.63	432.3	689	4.30
2	New York	84.36	261.3	752	4.83
3	Charlotte	82.56	98.3	280	4.30
4	Chicago	81.58	138.3	404	4.43
5	San Diego	79.41	151.3	294	3.77
6	Austin	78.24	146.0	389	3.93
7	Columbus	76.53	29.7	68	4.97
8	Denver	74.76	144.3	350	3.97
9	Washington DC	73.13	98.3	223	4.90
10	Philadelphia	72.86	102.0	280	3.50

Stethon Digital Marketing commentary: the two city tables are the whole strategy in miniature. A chiropractor in Seattle and a therapist in Bozeman are playing different games with the same scoreboard, which is why pack programs priced or scoped identically across specialties and metros systematically misfire.

Related Article: 100+ Healthcare Local SEO Statistics for 2026

D) Pack difficulty across 22 healthcare specialties

Quote-ready summary: across 22 specialties and 191 cities, rehab, med spa, and chiropractic own the hardest packs while primary care and mental health are the most open, and a handful of metros are hard for nearly everyone.

• 61. The Stethon local difficulty index spans 191 US cities, 22 healthcare specialties, and 1,174 city-specialty cells. (Stethon, 2026)
• 62. Rehab is the hardest pack specialty measured (123.1 benchmark, Dallas, 57 cities). (Stethon, 2026)
• 63. Wellness/med spa ranks second (119.98, San Antonio) and chiropractic third (119.76, Seattle). (Stethon, 2026)
• 64. Plastic surgery (117.17, Columbus) and weight loss (112.44, Los Angeles) round out the top five. (Stethon, 2026)
• 65. Orthodontics ranks sixth at 110.75 (Austin, 60 cities measured). (Stethon, 2026)
• 66. Urgent care benchmarks at 105.79 (Los Angeles) and dentist at 93.06 (Austin). (Stethon, 2026)
• 67. Mental health ranks 21st of 22 (90.63) and primary care 22nd (89.66), the most open packs measured. (Stethon, 2026)
• 68. The hardest-to-easiest specialty spread is ~33.4 raw points. (Calculated: 123.1-89.66)
• 69. Orthodontics is harder than mental health in 34 of 34 shared cities (100%); plastic surgery and med spa in 27 of 28 (96%). (Stethon, 2026)
• 70. Chiropractic is harder than ABA therapy in 34 of 35 shared cities (97%). (Stethon, 2026)
• 71. Dallas appears in the top 10 hardest pack list for 18 of 22 specialties, at a 3.9 average rank. (Stethon, 2026)
• 72. Denver and Chicago each appear in 17 lists; San Antonio and Charlotte in 16; San Diego and Seattle in 14. (Stethon, 2026)
• 73. Austin’s average rank of 3.2 is the most severe among metros appearing in 11+ lists. (Stethon, 2026)
• 74. On the parallel organic track (192 cities, 2,164 cells), chiropractic is the hardest specialty outright (122.82) and mental health jumps to 9th (109.6). (Stethon, 2026)
• 75. Mental health is 21st locally but 9th organically: open on the map, contested in blue links. (Stethon, 2026; Calculated contrast)
• 76. Tier 1 metros carry +20 in the difficulty model, tier 2 +8, tier 3 zero; results align almost perfectly with tier, validating the scoring. (Stethon, 2026)

Related Article: 100+ Google Business Profile Statistics for Healthcare

E) Pack position is a grid, and a website is table stakes

Quote-ready summary: pack position changes at every point in a service area, and more than 9 in 10 pack winners run a working website, so single-address rank checks and website-optional strategies both fail quietly.

• 77. In a 121-point grid scan of one mental health practice, pack coverage ranged from 35% of grid points (sub-specialty term) to 0% (four head terms), from the same office. (Stethon, 2026; anonymized)
• 78. The head term “psychologist” plus city returned just 5% grid coverage for the same practice. (Stethon, 2026)
• 79. That is a 7x visibility difference between sub-specialty and head terms on one profile. (Calculated)
• 80. 93.8% of top 3 chiropractic pack practices operate a working website linked from their profile. (Stethon, 2026)
• 81. 91.7% of top 3 mental health pack practices do the same. (Stethon, 2026)
• 82. The 6.2-8.3% of pack winners without websites sit almost entirely in tier 3 markets with low review floors. (Stethon, 2026)
• 83. Google states a complete Business Profile makes customers 2.7x more likely to consider a business reputable, 70% more likely to visit, and 50% more likely to consider purchasing. (Google)
• 84. Google has stated profiles with photos receive 42% more direction requests and 35% more website clicks. (Google, historical guidance)
• 85. Across 602 healthcare profiles, 34.7% hold a perfect 5.0 rating and 76.0% hold 4.5+, the competitive field a pack entrant faces. (Stethon, 2026)
• 86. Only 14.8% of healthcare profiles rate below 4.0, so a low-rated practice is a visible outlier in the pack’s candidate pool. (Stethon, 2026)

F) Behavior at the pack: what happens after it appears

Quote-ready summary: the pack introduces the practice, but reviews and listings accuracy close it: 75% of consumers read reviews and 62% would avoid a business with incorrect information.

That accuracy expectation is only getting stricter as AI-generated summaries enter the results page. Whitespark’s case-study research on AI Overviews for local business searches found that inconsistent listings were far less likely to be surfaced in these AI-written summaries, adding a new penalty on top of the traditional pack.

• 87. 75% of consumers read online reviews regularly or always. (BrightLocal, 2024)
• 88. 81% use Google as their review platform, the same surface the pack lives on. (BrightLocal, 2024)
• 89. 88% would use a business that responds to all reviews versus 47% for a silent one. (BrightLocal, 2024)
• 90. 62% would avoid a business after finding incorrect information online. (BrightLocal, 2023)
• 91. 71% of patients use reviews as the first step to find a new doctor; 90% use them to evaluate physicians. (Software Advice, 2020)
• 92. 76% say a positive online reputation influences which doctor they choose. (Healthgrades, 2025)
• 93. 80% of healthcare consumers say online scheduling influences provider choice, the action layer behind a pack click. (Press Ganey, 2025)
• 94. Nine in ten say accurate listings information is key to trust. (Press Ganey, 2025)
• 95. Google removed 240 million policy-violating reviews and 12 million fake profiles in 2024, enforcement that protects pack integrity. (Google, 2025)
• 96. The FTC’s review rule allows penalties up to $51,744 per violation for fake-review practices. (FTC, effective Oct 2024)

G) Pack math for clinic planning

Quote-ready summary: combining prevalence, click share, and entry floors turns the pack into arithmetic a clinic can budget against.

• 97. If ~39% of local searches show a pack and the top 3 capture ~48% of estimated clicks, a top 3 position touches roughly 19% of all local-search clicks for that query class. (Calculated: 0.39 x 0.481)
• 98. A mental health practice needs ~100 reviews for average markets and ~145 for top-quartile ones, a gap most practices can close inside a year. (Stethon, 2026)
• 99. A chiropractic practice needs ~296 baseline and 400+ in tier 1, an 18-24 month organic runway. (Stethon, 2026)
• 100. The chiropractic pack demands ~2.94x the review volume of the mental health pack for the same position. (Calculated)
• 101. Rating maintenance is asymmetric: a 4.9 floor in tier 1 chiropractic versus 4.2-4.5 in mental health. (Stethon, 2026)
• 102. In tier 3 markets, pack contention costs a review program measured in dozens, not hundreds: 33.0 average in Richmond, 2.0 in Bozeman. (Stethon, 2026)
• 103. The same investment reaches the pack ~3x faster in a tier 3 metro than a tier 1 metro, using the two measured runways. (Calculated framing)
• 104. Websites are a prerequisite for durable pack membership in 91.7-93.8% of cases; content depth (0.237-0.447 average coverage) is the remaining differentiator. (Stethon, 2026)
• 105. Every one of these floors varies by metro tier, which is why the first pack decision is market selection, not bidding. (Stethon, 2026; derived framing)

Stethon Digital Marketing commentary: clinics overweight tactics and underweight market selection. The 33-point specialty spread and the 216x city spread inside one specialty are the two numbers that should precede every pack budget conversation.

Methodology of this Local Pack statistics report

What this is: a US-focused compilation of Google Local Pack benchmarks from Stethon Digital Marketing first-party datasets (2026) and named third-party studies (2016-2025), each stat labeled by source and year.

First-party datasets: a map pack scan capturing the top 3 Google Business Profile listings for high-intent commercial queries across 191 US cities in 22 healthcare specialties (review counts, ratings, website presence, metro tier; tier adjustments +20/+8/0); a 602-profile healthcare GBP scan; a 121-point single-practice grid scan (anonymized, heatmap-tier approximations). Stats labeled “(Calculated)” are arithmetic on cited values. The Whitespark prevalence figure is a 540-query mixed-industry sample, and the First Page Sage CTR figures are aggregated estimates without a disclosed sample; both are presented as directional. Untraceable figures (the “93% pack prevalence” and “44% click the 3-pack” claims) were rejected.

Sources

• Stethon Digital Marketing Healthcare SEO Research 2026 (191-city map pack scan; 602-profile GBP scan; grid scan)
• Whitespark (AI Overviews for Local Business Searches case study, 2025, n=540)
• First Page Sage (Google CTR by ranking position, 2025)
• Google (Business Profile Help; Micro-Moments 2016; review enforcement blog 2025)
• BrightLocal (LCRS 2024; Discovery & Trust 2023; GMB Insights 2019); SOCi (2024)
• Software Advice (2020); Healthgrades (2025); Press Ganey (2025); FTC (16 CFR Part 465, 2024)

Editorial disclaimer

This report is an editorial synthesis of first-party research and named third-party benchmarks. It is not medical advice, not legal advice, and not a guarantee of marketing outcomes. Pack prevalence and CTR figures are directional and not healthcare-exclusive. Healthcare marketing is subject to platform policies, privacy requirements, and (where applicable) HIPAA-related constraints; consult qualified compliance guidance for your clinic and jurisdiction.

If you want a clear-eyed look at your numbers, our free clinic marketing audit breaks it down at no cost.

FAQ

Applying These Statistics to Your Healthcare Business in 2026

The takeaway from these numbers is to treat a top-three pack position as the real objective for each query that matters, then budget the work against your specialty’s measured floor and your metro’s competitiveness. Getting there means running the full closure sequence — profile completion, content coverage, citation cleanup, and review velocity — and measuring progress by grid coverage across your service area rather than a single flattering check from one address.

What that floor actually is varies by field, so the plan differs between specialties, which is why the chiropractic and mental health benchmarks above matter more than one blended target.

The pack is also only part of the local-search picture. For the surrounding context, our near me search benchmarks for clinics map how patients reach that map in the first place.

Since rating and review count are among the strongest signals for earning a spot in the map results, use this report together with our Google review statistics to prioritize the reviews that move pack ranking.

Cite this research (APA): Heitzer, A. (2026). 100+ Google Local Pack Statistics for 2026. Stethon Digital Marketing Healthcare SEO Research 2026. https://stethondigitalmarketing.com/google-local-pack-statistics/

Google Local Pack statistics show that top-three map pack positions drive the majority of patient calls and clicks for healthcare clinics in 2026.

Read more articles