Compare two fast-food chains
Pick two chains and see how their restaurants did on routine health inspections, side by side, in every place where both have enough inspections on record. Each place is compared separately, from that government’s own records.
Pick a chain in each box. The example below is already filled in.
In plain terms
Domino's and McDonald's can both be charted in six places. Domino's had clearly fewer inspections with the local finding in one. McDonald's had clearly fewer in one. In four the two are too close to call.
“Clearly” means the two likely ranges do not touch. Each place is its own comparison: the places count different things, so there is no overall winner, only a count of places. Part of any gap is the menu, not only how the restaurants are run.
Florida
Share of routine inspections that recorded at least one high-priority violation. All restaurants: 58.2%. Scale 0% to 70%.
Domino's clearly lower here. Its whole range sits under the other chain’s, so the gap is more than the margin of error.
New York City
Share of routine inspections that scored 14 or more points, so did not earn an A on the first visit. All restaurants: 40.2%. Scale 0% to 55%.
Too close to call. The two ranges overlap, so these records cannot separate them here.
New York State
Share of routine inspections that recorded at least one critical (red) violation. All food service establishments: 25.1%. Scale 0% to 40%.
Too close to call. The two ranges overlap, so these records cannot separate them here.
Chicago
Share of routine inspections that ended in a Fail. All restaurants: 24.4%. Scale 0% to 45%.
Too close to call. The two ranges overlap, so these records cannot separate them here.
Austin
Share of routine inspections that scored under 90, below the city's top category. All food establishments: 33.6%. Scale 0% to 45%.
Too close to call. The two ranges overlap, so these records cannot separate them here.
Seattle and King County
Share of routine inspections that received an Unsatisfactory result, meaning a red critical violation was noted. All food service establishments: 35.6%. Scale 0% to 60%.
McDonald's clearly lower here. Its whole range sits under the other chain’s, so the gap is more than the margin of error.
Informational only. These are public records, summarized. They are not a safety rating of any restaurant and not professional advice.
How the comparison is made
- One place at a time. The two chains are compared only inside a place, where both figures count the same event under the same rules, on the same scale. Nothing is added or averaged across places.
- The figure. For each chain in each place: the number of its routine inspections that recorded that place’s finding, divided by all its routine inspections there. Follow-up and complaint visits are left out. Each place page names its source and says exactly what is counted.
- The range. A 95% Wilson score interval (E. B. Wilson, 1927), the interval recommended for proportions by Brown, Cai and DasGupta, “Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion,” Statistical Science 16 (2001). Fewer inspections means a wider range.
- The verdict. If the two ranges overlap, the chains are too close to call in that place. If one chain’s whole range sits under the other’s, it was clearly lower there. We use this rule, and not a test on the difference, because it is the rule every other page on this site uses and a reader can check it by eye. It errs toward saying too close to call.
- The minimum. A chain needs 100 routine inspections in a place to be charted there, and a place is compared only when both chains clear that.
- Matching names. Restaurant names are matched to chains with a published table of name patterns. A location recorded under two chain names is counted for neither.
The full method is on the methodology page.
New York State data: 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.
Chicago data: 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.
What this does not show
- An overall winner. There is no combined score, because the places count different events. The only number that spans places is a count of them.
- Management quality on its own. Chains differ in what they handle, so part of any gap between two chains is the menu.
- Anything about one restaurant. Each figure sums up many inspections at many locations in one place over a few years.
- Small differences. Two chains whose ranges overlap may still differ a little; these records cannot show it, and the tool does not guess.
Last reviewed: September 2026. The figures are read from the current records and move when the records do.
Frequently asked questions
How do you decide two chains are too close to call?
Each chain's figure comes with a likely range, a 95% Wilson score interval. If the two ranges overlap, this tool says too close to call. It only says one chain was clearly lower when that chain's whole range sits under the other's. That is a strict test on purpose: two ranges that overlap a little might still differ, but a reader can check this rule by looking at the bars.
Why is there no overall winner?
Because each place counts a different thing: a high-priority violation in Florida, 14 or more points in New York City, a Fail in Chicago. Adding or averaging those would not measure anything. So the tool compares the two chains once per place and then reports a count of places, never a combined score.
Why is a place missing from my comparison?
A place is only compared when both chains have at least 100 routine inspections there. Below that, a range would be too wide to mean much. The tool lists every place it left out and says which chain fell short, with the number of inspections it found.
Does a lower figure mean a chain is cleaner?
Not on its own. Chains differ in what they handle: a coffee counter deals with far less raw food than a kitchen that fries chicken, so part of any gap is the menu. The figures also describe many locations in one place over a few years. They are not a statement about the brand everywhere, and they say nothing about any one restaurant.
Related tools
How often state inspectors recorded a high-priority violation at each chain's Florida restaurants, against the rate for all restaurants in the state.
Open tool →Fast-food chains in New York CityHow often each chain's New York City restaurants scored too many points for an A on a first inspection, against the rate for all restaurants in the city.
Open tool →Fast-food chains in New York StateHow often inspectors recorded a critical violation at each chain's restaurants in New York State outside New York City, Suffolk and Erie, against the rate for all food service establishments there.
Open tool →Fast-food chains in ChicagoHow often routine city inspections ended in a Fail at each chain's Chicago restaurants, against the rate for all restaurants in the city.
Open tool →Fast-food chains in AustinHow often routine city inspections scored under 90 at each chain's Austin restaurants, against the rate for all food establishments in the city.
Open tool →Fast-food chains in Seattle and King CountyHow often routine county inspections were marked Unsatisfactory at each chain's restaurants in Seattle and King County, against the rate for all food service establishments in the county.
Open tool →