What this is. We analyse the public Google reviews of independent restaurants and dental practices in the United States. This page reports the aggregate numbers from that work. No individual business is named, and every figure below is an average across a group.
Sample. 875 businesses. For each one we read the most recent 120 Google reviews, 103,355 reviews in total. Data collected between July and September 2026. Updated when new businesses are added.
Benchmarks by segment
| Segment | Businesses | Average rating | Owner response rate | Unanswered negatives per business |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Restaurant | 777 | 4.33 | 28.3% | 17.5 |
| Dentist | 98 | 4.32 | 52.0% | 12.7 |
Benchmarks by city
Cities with at least eight analysed businesses.
| City | Businesses | Average rating | Owner response rate | Unanswered negatives |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York | 123 | 4.36 | 25.4% | 18.7 |
| Washington | 67 | 4.33 | 29.0% | 16.8 |
| Brooklyn | 63 | 4.35 | 22.7% | 19.5 |
| Seattle | 60 | 4.34 | 18.8% | 22.0 |
| Chicago | 54 | 4.30 | 28.1% | 19.0 |
| Philadelphia | 44 | 4.30 | 34.2% | 15.7 |
| Austin | 39 | 4.35 | 33.3% | 13.0 |
| Boston | 37 | 4.31 | 27.7% | 17.6 |
| San Diego | 32 | 4.31 | 23.9% | 16.0 |
| Portland | 30 | 4.40 | 24.5% | 18.8 |
| Denver | 24 | 4.26 | 43.5% | 14.2 |
| Hoboken | 23 | 4.30 | 39.9% | 22.2 |
| Long Island City | 22 | 4.36 | 40.1% | 18.1 |
| Miami | 21 | 4.41 | 33.7% | 15.4 |
| Charlotte | 15 | 4.42 | 54.0% | 7.0 |
| Somerville | 14 | 4.32 | 26.3% | 13.7 |
| Astoria | 14 | 4.41 | 39.9% | 19.0 |
| Forest Hills | 13 | 4.43 | 42.5% | 8.6 |
| Dallas | 13 | 4.36 | 29.8% | 15.4 |
| Cambridge | 12 | 4.16 | 17.3% | 21.3 |
What customers complain about most
The single biggest complaint theme in each report, counted across the sample. Share is the average percentage of a business’s reviews that touch the theme.
| Complaint theme | Businesses where it ranks first | Average share of reviews |
|---|---|---|
| Inconsistent Food Quality | 8 | 18.4% |
| Portion Size Vs. Price | 7 | 19.6% |
| Service Inconsistency & Rudeness | 7 | 16.7% |
| Slow, Inattentive Service | 6 | 21.7% |
| Excessive Noise Levels | 6 | 16.2% |
| Service Inconsistency & Inattentiveness | 4 | 28.8% |
| Extreme Wait Times | 4 | 27.5% |
| Inconsistent Food Quality & Execution | 4 | 26.5% |
| Slow & Inconsistent Service | 4 | 22.8% |
| Food Quality Inconsistency | 4 | 21.3% |
| Rude & Rushed Service | 3 | 18.0% |
| Inconsistent Service Quality | 3 | 18.3% |
| Portion Size Vs. Price Perception | 3 | 16.3% |
| Service Speed & Wait Times | 3 | 27.0% |
| Inconsistent & Inattentive Service | 3 | 21.7% |
| Inconsistent Seasoning & Flavor | 3 | 16.3% |
| Inconsistent Seasoning & Blandness | 3 | 19.3% |
| Rude & Inconsistent Service | 3 | 22.3% |
| Bland, Underseasoned Food | 3 | 25.3% |
Method
- Source: public Google reviews, retrieved per business, most recent 120 reviews per business.
- Rating is the mean of the per business average, not a review weighted mean.
- Owner response rate is the share of reviews with a published owner reply.
- Unanswered negatives counts reviews of three stars or fewer without a reply.
- Groups with fewer than five businesses (segment) or eight businesses (city) are omitted.
- Reports that failed automated quality checks are excluded.
Using these numbers
You are welcome to cite this page. Please link back to it so readers can see the method and the sample size. If you want the same analysis for your own business, request a free report.