RecensioAI – review management software
    Original research · 2026

    The State of Local Reputation 2026

    Original Google Business Profile research based on 46,662 profiles across the United States and the Netherlands.

    We analyzed 46,662 unique Google Business Profiles using public fields returned by Google's Places API. This is observational research, not a consumer survey.

    See how your business comparesExplore the findings

    Collected 30 July – 24 August 2026 · free to cite under CC BY 4.0 · source: Google Maps Platform Places API

    Research snapshot

    Study
    The State of Local Reputation 2026
    Publisher
    RecensioAI B.V.
    Profiles analyzed
    46,662 unique Google Business Profiles
    Core sample
    43,526
    United States core sample
    26,975
    Netherlands core sample
    16,551
    Deep audit
    3,136 additional profiles
    Deep US sample
    2,065
    Deep Netherlands sample
    1,071
    Core collection period
    July 30 – August 24, 2026
    Deep audit date
    August 26, 2026
    Research type
    Observational analysis
    Source
    Google Maps Platform Places API
    Version
    1.0
    Published
    August 26, 2026

    The core and deep samples do not overlap: no profile appears in both. Results describe the businesses studied and should not be interpreted as representative of all businesses in either country.

    View methodologyJump to key findings

    1. Key findings

    Every figure below names the sample it comes from. Where we write that a field was not returned, we mean exactly that: the API did not return the field.

    46,662

    unique profiles analyzed

    26,975 US · 16,551 Netherlands · 3,136 deep audit

    Two non-overlapping samples

    All figures come from public fields returned by Google's Places API. This is observational research, not a consumer survey.

    15.3%

    no website was returned

    6,681 profiles

    Core sample · n=43,526

    Across the core sample, Google's Places API returned no website for 15.3% of profiles: 14.1% in the US and 17.4% in the Netherlands.

    4.39★

    average rating

    United States 4.34 · Netherlands 4.47

    Profiles with rating data · n=41,164

    46.4% of these profiles sat below 4.5 stars and 20.7% reached 4.9 or higher.

    322

    median review count in the US

    Netherlands: 73

    Profiles with rating data · n=41,164

    The median US profile had approximately 4.4× as many reviews as the median Netherlands profile.

    2. Basic fields that were not returned

    For part of the 43,526 profiles in the core sample, the Places API returned no website, no phone number, or no regular opening hours. Those are the fields customers want to use.

    15.3%

    no website was returned

    6,681 profiles

    Core sample · n=43,526

    United States 14.1% · Netherlands 17.4%

    8.7%

    no phone number was returned

    3,798 profiles

    Core sample · n=43,526

    United States 6.6% · Netherlands 12.1%

    11.3%

    regular opening hours were not returned

    4,921 profiles

    Core sample · n=43,526

    United States 9.9% · Netherlands 13.5%

    For 5.2% of the core sample (2,278 profiles), neither a website nor opening hours were returned.

    3. What a normal rating is

    Among the 41,164 core profiles for which Google returned a rating and review count, the average is 4.39 stars. Almost half sit below 4.5.

    4.39

    average rating

    Profiles with rating data · n=41,164

    United States 4.34 · Netherlands 4.47

    46.4%

    sit below 4.5

    Profiles with rating data · n=41,164

    United States 50.2% · Netherlands 40.1%

    15.2%

    sit below 4.0

    Profiles with rating data · n=41,164

    United States 17.5% · Netherlands 11.3%

    20.7%

    reach 4.9 or higher

    Profiles with rating data · n=41,164

    United States 17.4% · Netherlands 26.1%

    4. The review gap between the US and the Netherlands

    Within the core sample, a median US profile had 322 reviews. In the Netherlands sample, the median was 73.

    The median US profile in this sample had approximately 4.4× as many reviews as the median Netherlands profile.

    This is an observed difference between the profiles studied and should not be interpreted as an estimate for all businesses in either country or Europe as a whole.

    United States Netherlands

    Fewer than 10 reviews

    9.5%
    16.4%

    Fewer than 50 reviews

    21.5%
    41.8%

    More than 1,000 reviews

    21.7%
    7.6%

    Median review count

    322

    United States

    73

    Netherlands

    Profiles with rating data · n=41,164

    In the Netherlands sample, 41.8% of profiles with review data had fewer than 50 reviews; in the US sample, 21.5%.

    5. The stored local comparison

    For 22,169 of the 43,526 core profiles, a second nearby profile was stored during collection. Two percentages, two different denominators.

    46.6%

    of the full core sample

    20,283 of the 43,526 profiles in the core sample had an available stored comparison that was ahead on rating, review count, or both.

    Approximately 91.5%

    among profiles with a comparison available

    Among the 22,169 profiles for which a comparison was available, 20,283 were behind the stored comparison on rating, review count, or both.

    How the comparison is selected

    Our collection logic only stores a comparison when it shares the same Google primary type, sits within roughly 8 kilometres, has at least 20 reviews, and is ahead within an overtakeable band (at least 10 and at most about 400 more reviews, and no more than 2.5× the review count). Landmarks are excluded.

    Important: because that rule deliberately selects a business that is already ahead, the 91.5% figure is largely a property of the selection rule. It must not be read as "91.5% of local businesses trail their competitors".

    Separate deep audit · n=3,136

    6. Deep audit of public fields

    For a separate sample of 3,136 profiles (2,065 US, 1,071 Netherlands) across six industry cohorts, we checked field by field what the API returned. This sample does not overlap with the core sample.

    1.8%

    no photos returned

    56 profiles

    Separate deep audit · n=3,136

    United States 0.5% · Netherlands 4.3%

    1.1%

    not marked operational

    34 profiles

    Separate deep audit · n=3,136

    United States 0.8% · Netherlands 1.7%

    The API returned no photos for 1.8% of these profiles. That does not mean the full photo library is empty: the Places API returns at most ten photos in this request.

    Public Field Coverage Index

    RecensioAI metric, not a Google score.

    The index is the percentage of six equally weighted checks a profile passes. Each check only asks whether the API returned the field:

    • A website was returnedwebsiteUri
    • A phone number was returnedinternationalPhoneNumber
    • Regular opening hours were returnedregularOpeningHours.periods
    • At least one photo was returnedphotos
    • More than one Google type was returnedtypes
    • Status was OPERATIONALbusinessStatus

    Limitation: the multiple-Google-types check only means Google returned more than one type. That is not proof of a better-managed or better profile. The index contains no ratings or review counts and says nothing about business quality, so prefer the individual fields above.

    United States Netherlands

    Public Field Coverage Index (0–100)

    97.3
    94.8
    Separate deep audit · n=3,136

    7. By industry

    Within these six popularity-ranked industry cohorts, restaurants most often had a returned website, phone number, opening hours and at least one photo. Bars had the highest share with no website returned; beauty salons had the highest average rating.

    Restaurants

    n=570

    Avg. rating
    4.27
    4.5+
    33.7%
    No site
    1.1%
    No phone
    1.6%
    No hours
    0.7%
    No photos*
    0%
    Field coverage
    99.4

    Hair salons

    n=549

    Avg. rating
    4.60
    4.5+
    72.1%
    No site
    11.8%
    No phone
    2.4%
    No hours
    3.3%
    No photos*
    0.7%
    Field coverage
    96.8

    Beauty salons

    n=520

    Avg. rating
    4.62
    4.5+
    77.5%
    No site
    9.6%
    No phone
    2.7%
    No hours
    5%
    No photos*
    1.3%
    Field coverage
    96.8

    Auto repair

    n=520

    Avg. rating
    4.40
    4.5+
    46.2%
    No site
    6.9%
    No phone
    0.8%
    No hours
    1.2%
    No photos*
    1.2%
    Field coverage
    98.2

    Cafés

    n=500

    Avg. rating
    4.30
    4.5+
    44.6%
    No site
    10.6%
    No phone
    11.4%
    No hours
    6.2%
    No photos*
    5.8%
    Field coverage
    94.1

    Bars

    n=477

    Avg. rating
    4.39
    4.5+
    46.7%
    No site
    18.4%
    No phone
    14.3%
    No hours
    6.7%
    No photos*
    2.1%
    Field coverage
    92.6

    Tap a column header to sort. Deep sample (n=3,136); *no photos returned by the API, not necessarily an empty photo library. The CSV contains only the aggregate rows shown above.

    What the data means by industry

    The same deep sample, read industry by industry: where are the basics already covered, and where is there still room?

    Restaurants · n=570

    Restaurants: strong profiles, bigger reputation opportunity

    Avg. rating
    4.27
    4.5+
    33.7%
    No website
    1.1%
    No phone
    1.6%

    Restaurants in the deep sample were among the strongest industries for basic profile completeness. However, only 33.7% reached a rating of 4.5 or higher.

    For restaurants, basic profile setup appears less likely to be the main differentiator. Reputation, rating and review performance may provide more room for businesses to stand apart.

    See how my restaurant compares

    Hair salons · n=549

    Hair salons: a high reputation benchmark

    Avg. rating
    4.60
    4.5+
    72.1%
    No website
    11.8%
    No phone
    2.4%

    Hair salons showed a high reputation benchmark: 72.1% of the profiles studied reached 4.5 stars or higher. For 11.8%, no website was returned.

    In a category where strong ratings are common, a business with a weaker rating may face a higher reputation benchmark when customers compare nearby options.

    Check my salon

    Beauty salons · n=520

    Beauty salons: the highest average rating in the sample

    Avg. rating
    4.62
    4.5+
    77.5%
    No website
    9.6%
    No phone
    2.7%

    Beauty salons recorded the highest average rating among the six studied industries, at 4.62, with 77.5% at 4.5 stars or higher.

    A strong rating appears to be common in this sample, which may make reputation management particularly important when customers compare similar businesses.

    Check my salon

    Auto repair · n=520

    Auto repair: a mixed picture

    Avg. rating
    4.40
    4.5+
    46.2%
    No website
    6.9%
    No phone
    0.8%

    Auto repair profiles averaged 4.40 stars, with 46.2% at 4.5 or higher. For 6.9%, no website was returned.

    With roughly half of the studied profiles below 4.5 stars, both review performance and a complete profile may still leave room to differentiate in this category.

    Check my workshop

    Cafés · n=500

    Cafés: the clearest basic-information opportunity

    Avg. rating
    4.30
    4.5+
    44.6%
    No website
    10.6%
    No phone
    11.4%

    Cafés showed one of the clearest basic profile-information opportunities in the deep sample: no website was returned for 10.6%, no phone number for 11.4%, no regular hours for 6.2% and no photos for 5.8%.

    Basic contact and profile information may still be an area where cafés can make it easier for customers to choose them over a nearby alternative.

    Check my café

    Bars · n=477

    Bars: the highest share with no website returned

    Avg. rating
    4.39
    4.5+
    46.7%
    No website
    18.4%
    No phone
    14.3%

    Bars had the highest share of profiles with no website returned among the six industries studied, at 18.4%. No phone number was returned for 14.3% and no regular hours for 6.7%.

    For bars, simply making key customer information easy to find may still represent a meaningful profile-completeness opportunity.

    Check my bar

    Your local benchmark matters more

    Industry averages are useful for context, but your real benchmark is the businesses customers see alongside you.

    Illustrative example, not a study finding: a restaurant with 150 reviews may look strong nationally but weak if nearby competitors have 1,000. A salon with a 4.6 rating may look excellent in one city and ordinary in another.

    RecensioAI's free Google Business Profile Scan compares the public signals that matter around your own business.

    See where my business standsAnalyze a competitor

    Quick answers from the research

    Each answer refers to the profiles studied and names the sample the figure comes from.

    What is the average Google rating for a local business?

    Across the 41,164 studied profiles for which a rating and review count were returned, the average rating was 4.39 stars: 4.34 in the US sample and 4.47 in the Netherlands sample.

    How many Google reviews does a local business typically have?

    In this study the median US profile had 322 reviews and the median Netherlands profile had 73. Both medians describe only the profiles studied.

    What percentage of Google Business Profiles have no website?

    For 15.3% of the 43,526-profile core sample (6,681 profiles), the Places API returned no website.

    What percentage of businesses have a Google rating below 4.5?

    46.4% of the 41,164 profiles with rating data sat below 4.5 stars, and 15.2% sat below 4.0.

    Which industry had the highest average rating?

    In the deep sample (n=3,136, six industries), beauty salons had the highest average rating: 4.62 stars across 520 profiles.

    Which industry had the most complete profile information?

    Restaurants had the highest public field coverage in the deep sample. That is a RecensioAI measure based on six returned API fields, not a Google score, and it says nothing about the quality of the business.

    Which industry had the highest share without a website returned?

    Bars: for 18.4% of the 477 bar profiles studied, the API returned no website — the highest share among the six industries studied.

    How do US and Netherlands review counts compare?

    The median US profile in this sample had approximately 4.4× as many reviews as the median Netherlands profile (322 versus 73). This is an observed difference between the profiles studied.

    Definitions

    Every figure in this report refers to what Google's Places API returned, not to what a business definitely does or does not have.

    Website returned
    Google's Places API returned a website value for the profile. A profile with no returned website may still have a website elsewhere that is not linked on the profile.API field: websiteUri
    Phone returned
    The API returned the phone-number field used in this analysis. It does not prove the business is unreachable by phone.API field: internationalPhoneNumber
    Opening hours returned
    Regular weekly opening hours were returned by the API. Special or holiday hours are not used anywhere in this report.API field: regularOpeningHours.periods
    Rating
    The Google rating returned at the time of collection. Ratings change continuously, so all rating figures are a snapshot of the collection window.API field: rating
    Review count
    The review/user-rating count returned at the time of collection.API field: userRatingCount
    No photos returned
    The API request returned no photos. This does not necessarily prove that the Google Business Profile contains zero photos; the request returns at most ten.API field: photos
    Operational
    The API returned the status value OPERATIONAL. Profiles counted as not operational returned another value, such as CLOSED_TEMPORARILY or CLOSED_PERMANENTLY, or returned no status at all.API field: businessStatus
    Google type
    The category types Google returned for the profile. More returned types is not by itself proof of a better-managed profile.API field: types
    Stored local comparison
    A second nearby profile stored alongside the studied profile during collection. Our selection rule: Same Google primary type, within ~8 km, at least 20 reviews, ahead within an overtakeable band (>=10 and <=400 more reviews, <=2.5x review count), landmarks excluded. Because the rule deliberately picks a peer that is already ahead, the share of compared profiles that are behind is a property of that rule and not a finding about local businesses in general.

    Methodology

    Study design

    An observational analysis of public Google Business Profile fields. No business owners or consumers were surveyed, and no field was estimated or imputed.

    Data source

    Google Maps Platform Places API, requested with explicit field masks. No scraping, screenshots or third-party data were used.

    Collection period

    Core sample: 30 July – 24 August 2026. Deep audit: 26 August 2026. Ratings and review counts are snapshots of that window.

    Markets

    United States and Netherlands. The non-US data comes entirely from the Netherlands and is explicitly not a European or EU sample.

    Core sample

    43,526 unique profiles: 26,975 in the US and 16,551 in the Netherlands. The API returned a rating and review count for 41,164 profiles; the remaining 2,362 are excluded from every rating and review figure.

    Deep sample

    3,136 separate profiles (2,065 US, 1,071 Netherlands) across 6 industry cohorts: restaurants, hair salons, beauty salons, auto repair, cafés and bars.

    Sampling methodology

    Profiles were discovered through text searches per industry and locality, in the order Google returned them (popularity-ranked). This is not a random sample; better-known businesses are over-represented.

    Deduplication

    Each profile counts once, keyed on its unique Google place ID. Profiles without a place ID were excluded. The core and deep samples share no place ID.

    Industry classification

    Industries come from the primary type Google returned, not from our own taxonomy. The core sample contains 551 distinct category labels; the deep audit deliberately used 6 cohorts.

    Comparison methodology

    A stored local comparison shares the same Google primary type, sits within roughly 8 km, has at least 20 reviews, and is ahead within an overtakeable band (at least 10 and at most about 400 more reviews, no more than 2.5× the review count); landmarks are excluded. Because the rule selects a business that is already ahead, the share of compared profiles that are behind is a property of the rule.

    Calculations

    Percentages are the number of profiles meeting a condition divided by the denominator named alongside them. Medians are unweighted. The 4.4× ratio is only 322 divided by 73. Missing values are never counted as zero.

    Known limitations

    Selection bias from popularity ranking; Netherlands-only coverage outside the US; six cohorts in the deep audit; ratings as point-in-time snapshots; and the comparison rule above. Percentages describe only the profiles studied.

    What the Places API does not expose

    An owner-written business description, owner replies to reviews, linked social profiles, Q&A answers and Google Posts history. Google's editorialSummary is not the same as a business description and is not used anywhere.

    What this study does not claim

    It claims no causation, no effect of reviews on Google rankings, no representativeness for Europe or for all businesses in a country, and never treats a field the API did not return as proof that the information does not exist elsewhere.

    Underlying profile data source: Google. This research uses the Google Maps Platform Places API and publishes aggregate results only; profile-level data is not redistributed.

    Related reading

    11. Version history

    This is version 1.0, last updated 26 August 2026. This URL is permanent: future editions and corrections appear here rather than at a new page, so existing citations keep working.

    1. Version 1.0 · 26 August 2026

      First publication of the 2026 edition: core sample of 43,526 Google Business Profiles collected 30 July – 24 August 2026, plus a non-overlapping deep audit of 3,136 profiles across six industries collected on 26 August 2026. Includes basic-field coverage, rating and review-volume distributions, the US–Netherlands comparison, per-industry cohorts, definitions and full methodology.

    This study is part of RecensioAI's research programme, where we keep our methodology and earlier editions.

    The national benchmark is interesting. Your local benchmark is useful.

    Knowing that the median US profile in this study had 322 reviews gives you context. Knowing how many reviews the businesses appearing beside yours have gives you something you can act on.

    Run a free RecensioAI scan to see your public profile signals and understand how your business compares locally.

    Scan my Google Business ProfileAnalyze a competitor

    How to cite this research

    Journalists, agencies and researchers may use these aggregate figures freely under CC BY 4.0. One condition: cite the source and link back to this page.

    RecensioAI (2026). The State of Local Reputation 2026: an analysis of 46,662 Google Business Profiles in the United States and the Netherlands. https://recensioai.com/reviews-benchmark-report

    Canonical URL: https://recensioai.com/reviews-benchmark-report