Whataburger on health inspections, place by place

What stands out

Charted in Florida and Austin, under the local rate in both. Florida: 32 of 134 (23.9%, likely range 17.5% to 31.8%), against 58.2% for all restaurants. Austin: 1 of 107 (0.9%, likely range 0.2% to 5.1%), against 33.6% for all food establishments.

The Austin figure rests on 1 inspection. 1 of 107 scored under 90. A rate built on a count that small is not worth quoting by itself; the range, 0.2% to 5.1%, is the honest version, and it sits wholly under the city’s rate. Austin’s comparison figure covers every food establishment in the city’s file, not only restaurants.

Both samples are small. Florida has 134 counted inspections and Austin 107, each not far over the 100 we require. No restaurant name in the other 4 places’ records matched Whataburger.

Part of the gap is the kind of kitchen. New York State’s health department sorts kitchens by how much preparation they do. It names “table-service restaurants, diners and school kitchens which prepare foods” as typical high risk, and kitchens that prepare food to order, “such as pizza, hamburgers and sandwiches,” as typical medium risk. Every local rate on this page includes table-service restaurants, so part of any gap between a chain and the local rate is the kind of kitchen, before anyone’s management comes into it.

Analysis written September 2026. The figures in it are read from the current records, so they move when the records do.

How these figures are made

1. Sources. Florida: Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation; Austin: Austin Public Health. Each place’s page says exactly which inspections are counted and why.
2. The figure. In each place, the number of the chain’s counted routine inspections that recorded that place’s finding, divided by all of them. The local rate is the same sum over everything in that place’s file.
3. The range. A 95% Wilson score interval. Fewer inspections means a wider range. A chain needs 100 counted inspections in a place to be charted there.
4. Matching names. Restaurant names are matched to Whataburger with a published table of name patterns, which also lists every spelling it matched. A location recorded under two chain names is counted for neither. If a match is wrong, write to hello@fastfoodfact.com.
5. No combined figure. Nothing on this page adds, averages or orders rates from two places. The only number that spans places is a count of where the chain sits against each local rate.

The full method is on the methodology page.

What this does not show

• Management quality 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 between a chain and the local rate is the menu, and the local rate includes full-service kitchens that do far more cooking than any chain here.
• The brand as a whole. These are Whataburger locations in two places over a few years. The records say nothing about its locations anywhere else.
• Anything about one restaurant. A figure sums up many inspections at many locations. It is not a warning about, or a recommendation of, the one near you.
• Which place is stricter or cleaner. Each place counts a different event under different rules, so the rows cannot be set against each other.

Informational only. These are public records, summarized; they are not a safety rating of any restaurant and not professional advice. Last reviewed: September 2026.