U.S. Cities with the Most Residents Working from Home

Compare work-from-home shares in U.S. cities with 50,000+ residents using ACS data. See worker counts, survey uncertainty and rent alongside each estimate.

Sammamish, Washington has the highest published work-from-home share among places meeting this page’s population and worker thresholds. The statistic describes residents’ usual work arrangement during the ACS 2020–2024 window. It does not count available remote jobs, measure internet performance or establish whether a city suits every remote worker.

Data reviewed September 30, 2026 · ACS 2020–2024 · ACS B08301_021 / B08301_001

What the data show

Sammamish city, Washington leads the eligible exact-value table at 38.8% . The ranking contains 822 places. Among the first 100 rows, California has 26; Texas has 10; Georgia has 8. These counts describe ranked places, not the share of all residents living in those states.

Applying a larger-city threshold of 100,000 residents changes the leading examples to Frisco city, TX (37.8%); Berkeley city, CA (37.1%); Cary town, NC (36.5%) . This sensitivity check uses the same metric and precision rules, and shows why a population cutoff must accompany any headline about the “top” city.

Workers who worked from home ranking and city comparison table

Filter the complete eligible set by name, state or a higher population threshold. The rank column keeps each place’s position in the original national eligible universe. Downloads contain all matching rows, including rows on later table pages.

Top 100 of 822 eligible places. National ranks use unrounded values.

ACS 2020–2024· MOEs are 90% and shown in percentage points ·Workers who worked from home
National rank	Place	Population · July 2025	Workers who worked from home	Median gross rent
1	Sammamish city, WA	66,110	38.8% ±1.8 pp 12,663 / 32,602 workers	$2,857 ±$168
2	Redmond city, WA	82,506	38.4% ±2.6 pp 16,226 / 42,229 workers	$2,409 ±$48
3	Santa Monica city, CA	90,082	38.4% ±1.9 pp 19,315 / 50,357 workers	$2,402 ±$88
4	Frisco city, TX	236,955	37.8% ±1.5 pp 43,048 / 113,942 workers	$2,014 ±$65
5	Johns Creek city, GA	80,401	37.8% ±2.8 pp 14,812 / 39,236 workers	$2,257 ±$41
6	Berkeley city, CA	121,911	37.1% ±2.0 pp 21,841 / 58,917 workers	$2,133 ±$65
7	Alpharetta city, GA	66,921	36.7% ±2.5 pp 12,936 / 35,206 workers	$1,948 ±$50
8	Hoboken city, NJ	59,027	36.7% ±2.8 pp 14,224 / 38,793 workers	$2,938 ±$129
9	Cary town, NC	183,582	36.5% ±1.4 pp 34,312 / 93,989 workers	$1,738 ±$30
10	Apex town, NC	80,419	36.0% ±2.4 pp 13,105 / 36,394 workers	$1,902 ±$59
11	Celina city, TX	64,427	35.8% ±6.7 pp 6,238 / 17,413 workers	$2,379 ±$466
12	Bellevue city, WA	154,193	35.6% ±1.4 pp 28,312 / 79,631 workers	$2,572 ±$53
13	Palo Alto city, CA	67,609	35.4% ±2.7 pp 11,414 / 32,286 workers	$3,484 ±$157
14	Seattle city, WA	784,777	34.8% ±0.7 pp 159,285 / 458,144 workers	$2,030 ±$22
15	Dublin city, CA	71,602	34.7% ±2.4 pp 12,718 / 36,635 workers	$3,191 ±$66
16	Boulder city, CO	105,689	34.4% ±1.9 pp 19,339 / 56,223 workers	$2,018 ±$65
17	Dunwoody city, GA	51,792	33.9% ±2.7 pp 9,419 / 27,805 workers	$1,859 ±$44
18	San Ramon city, CA	86,209	33.9% ±1.9 pp 14,394 / 42,495 workers	$2,968 ±$96
19	Kirkland city, WA	97,410	33.9% ±1.9 pp 17,088 / 50,453 workers	$2,401 ±$54
20	Holly Springs town, NC	50,288	33.5% ±1.9 pp 7,466 / 22,279 workers	$2,021 ±$111
21	Washington city, DC	693,645	33.0% ±0.8 pp 123,146 / 373,183 workers	$1,954 ±$26
22	Bothell city, WA	52,199	32.9% ±2.8 pp 8,455 / 25,681 workers	$2,346 ±$65
23	Rockville city, MD	67,563	32.7% ±1.9 pp 11,721 / 35,815 workers	$2,274 ±$51
24	Encinitas city, CA	60,736	32.7% ±2.2 pp 10,290 / 31,480 workers	$2,886 ±$115
25	Alameda city, CA	76,876	32.7% ±2.2 pp 12,492 / 38,253 workers	$2,474 ±$62
26	Roswell city, GA	91,505	32.2% ±2.3 pp 15,751 / 48,918 workers	$1,810 ±$34
27	Newton city, MA	90,741	32.2% ±2.0 pp 14,786 / 45,931 workers	$2,370 ±$81
28	Fremont city, CA	226,442	32.1% ±1.4 pp 36,657 / 114,249 workers	$2,933 ±$48
29	Carlsbad city, CA	112,260	31.9% ±2.0 pp 17,310 / 54,224 workers	$2,808 ±$100
30	Sandy Springs city, GA	105,013	31.9% ±1.9 pp 20,047 / 62,833 workers	$1,870 ±$38
31	Cupertino city, CA	58,333	31.8% ±2.2 pp 8,933 / 28,088 workers	At least $3,500
32	Eden Prairie city, MN	63,075	31.7% ±2.1 pp 10,788 / 33,993 workers	$1,833 ±$57
33	Somerville city, MA	84,211	31.3% ±2.2 pp 17,488 / 55,800 workers	$2,517 ±$64
34	Naperville city, IL	153,114	31.1% ±1.2 pp 23,608 / 75,830 workers	$1,885 ±$39
35	Scottsdale city, AZ	243,006	31.1% ±1.5 pp 38,752 / 124,562 workers	$2,013 ±$48
36	Folsom city, CA	91,983	31.0% ±2.7 pp 11,977 / 38,581 workers	$2,352 ±$47
37	Oak Park village, IL	52,823	31.0% ±2.0 pp 8,471 / 27,323 workers	$1,593 ±$81
38	San Francisco city, CA	826,079	31.0% ±0.6 pp 144,584 / 466,388 workers	$2,476 ±$30
39	Cambridge city, MA	122,588	30.8% ±1.5 pp 21,511 / 69,864 workers	$2,787 ±$48
40	Walnut Creek city, CA	70,012	30.8% ±2.4 pp 10,110 / 32,858 workers	$2,680 ±$111
41	Austin city, TX	1,002,632	30.7% ±0.7 pp 177,726 / 579,181 workers	$1,729 ±$14
42	Leander city, TX	91,132	30.6% ±2.2 pp 12,441 / 40,602 workers	$1,939 ±$92
43	Mountain View city, CA	85,438	30.6% ±2.3 pp 14,747 / 48,164 workers	$3,062 ±$93
44	Franklin city, TN	90,226	30.4% ±1.9 pp 14,003 / 46,072 workers	$1,923 ±$50
45	Burbank city, CA	102,988	30.4% ±2.2 pp 15,814 / 52,091 workers	$2,192 ±$51
46	Broomfield city, CO	79,174	29.9% ±1.7 pp 12,713 / 42,449 workers	$2,126 ±$39
47	Cedar Park city, TX	79,032	29.9% ±2.3 pp 12,173 / 40,716 workers	$1,846 ±$55
48	Atlanta city, GA	529,110	29.7% ±1.0 pp 80,710 / 271,965 workers	$1,711 ±$22
49	Smyrna city, GA	57,513	29.6% ±3.0 pp 9,574 / 32,398 workers	$1,739 ±$50
50	Brookhaven city, GA	59,643	29.5% ±2.3 pp 9,634 / 32,690 workers	$1,882 ±$51
51	Redondo Beach city, CA	67,281	29.3% ±2.4 pp 10,434 / 35,568 workers	$2,691 ±$71
52	Edina city, MN	54,356	29.2% ±2.8 pp 7,598 / 25,993 workers	$1,844 ±$60
53	Sunnyvale city, CA	156,577	29.2% ±1.5 pp 25,157 / 86,100 workers	$3,039 ±$59
54	Pleasanton city, CA	74,556	29.1% ±1.8 pp 10,931 / 37,592 workers	$3,060 ±$123
55	Maple Grove city, MN	73,893	29.1% ±2.3 pp 11,366 / 39,106 workers	$1,868 ±$59
56	Flower Mound town, TX	79,540	28.9% ±1.8 pp 11,953 / 41,292 workers	$2,231 ±$83
57	Newport Beach city, CA	81,977	28.9% ±2.3 pp 12,164 / 42,123 workers	$3,316 ±$90
58	Alexandria city, VA	160,662	28.9% ±1.2 pp 28,298 / 98,041 workers	$2,089 ±$32
59	Castle Rock town, CO	83,815	28.8% ±2.1 pp 12,423 / 43,130 workers	$2,000 ±$107
60	Plymouth city, MN	78,942	28.8% ±2.4 pp 12,204 / 42,398 workers	$1,766 ±$38
61	Charlotte city, NC	964,784	28.8% ±0.7 pp 140,181 / 487,142 workers	$1,612 ±$16
62	Wake Forest town, NC	58,147	28.7% ±2.6 pp 7,735 / 26,963 workers	$1,596 ±$105
63	Ann Arbor city, MI	122,233	28.7% ±1.8 pp 17,554 / 61,208 workers	$1,649 ±$39
64	Fulshear city, TX	64,630	28.6% ±6.1 pp 4,449 / 15,553 workers	$1,952 ±$1,517
65	Portland city, OR	635,109	28.5% ±0.7 pp 102,041 / 358,029 workers	$1,655 ±$18
66	Evanston city, IL	76,380	28.5% ±2.2 pp 10,544 / 37,057 workers	$1,762 ±$46
67	Huntersville town, NC	68,535	28.4% ±2.2 pp 9,946 / 34,960 workers	$1,834 ±$62
68	Chapel Hill town, NC	63,565	28.1% ±2.1 pp 8,174 / 29,039 workers	$1,613 ±$56
69	St. Louis Park city, MN	50,027	28.1% ±2.2 pp 8,616 / 30,611 workers	$1,644 ±$43
70	Irvine city, CA	318,764	28.0% ±1.3 pp 43,414 / 155,297 workers	$2,997 ±$51
71	Pasadena city, CA	135,804	27.6% ±1.5 pp 20,007 / 72,450 workers	$2,265 ±$38
72	Plano city, TX	293,028	27.5% ±1.0 pp 42,767 / 155,370 workers	$1,841 ±$24
73	Minnetonka city, MN	53,969	27.4% ±2.0 pp 7,768 / 28,309 workers	$1,779 ±$30
74	Carmel city, IN	105,634	27.4% ±1.8 pp 14,694 / 53,591 workers	$1,712 ±$47
75	Royal Oak city, MI	57,583	27.4% ±1.8 pp 9,684 / 35,348 workers	$1,381 ±$47
76	Woodbury city, MN	81,558	27.4% ±2.3 pp 11,359 / 41,465 workers	$1,908 ±$64
77	Denver city, CO	740,613	27.3% ±0.6 pp 114,558 / 419,619 workers	$1,831 ±$17
78	Weston city, FL	69,588	27.3% ±2.9 pp 9,019 / 33,097 workers	$2,851 ±$110
79	Little Elm city, TX	62,727	27.2% ±2.9 pp 7,544 / 27,767 workers	$1,953 ±$110
80	Centennial city, CO	108,658	26.9% ±1.6 pp 15,456 / 57,427 workers	$2,148 ±$63
81	Laguna Niguel city, CA	64,107	26.8% ±2.6 pp 8,752 / 32,600 workers	$2,903 ±$83
82	Medford city, MA	59,834	26.8% ±2.4 pp 9,430 / 35,172 workers	$2,509 ±$94
83	Saratoga Springs city, UT	61,397	26.8% ±3.2 pp 5,554 / 20,733 workers	$2,256 ±$128
84	Mount Pleasant town, SC	95,469	26.7% ±2.6 pp 12,642 / 47,270 workers	$2,159 ±$118
85	Redwood City city, CA	82,178	26.7% ±1.8 pp 11,594 / 43,358 workers	$2,968 ±$76
86	Allen city, TX	113,447	26.7% ±1.8 pp 14,968 / 56,036 workers	$1,932 ±$59
87	Oakland city, CA	440,838	26.5% ±0.9 pp 60,843 / 229,529 workers	$1,979 ±$29
88	Tigard city, OR	57,929	26.4% ±2.2 pp 7,723 / 29,217 workers	$1,782 ±$48
89	San Rafael city, CA	59,410	26.3% ±1.7 pp 7,844 / 29,866 workers	$2,377 ±$73
90	Minneapolis city, MN	430,324	26.2% ±1.0 pp 62,681 / 239,419 workers	$1,371 ±$20
91	Parker town, CO	65,985	26.2% ±2.0 pp 8,981 / 34,338 workers	$2,096 ±$100
92	Gilbert town, AZ	287,285	26.1% ±1.0 pp 37,982 / 145,491 workers	$2,110 ±$37
93	Bowie city, MD	58,383	26.0% ±2.3 pp 8,292 / 31,871 workers	$2,330 ±$58
94	Gaithersburg city, MD	71,113	26.0% ±2.4 pp 9,865 / 37,937 workers	$2,058 ±$66
95	Raleigh city, NC	506,306	25.8% ±0.9 pp 68,159 / 263,822 workers	$1,572 ±$23
96	Wheaton city, IL	54,065	25.7% ±1.8 pp 6,780 / 26,332 workers	$1,799 ±$83
97	Santa Clara city, CA	133,446	25.7% ±1.7 pp 18,991 / 73,978 workers	$3,016 ±$60
98	Olympia city, WA	56,724	25.6% ±2.5 pp 6,923 / 27,011 workers	$1,599 ±$57
99	Shoreline city, WA	66,542	25.6% ±2.4 pp 8,001 / 31,304 workers	$1,985 ±$75
100	Fishers city, IN	104,812	25.5% ±2.1 pp 13,885 / 54,429 workers	$1,611 ±$85

First 100

What the work-from-home share counts

The numerator is the ACS estimate of workers age 16 and older who usually worked from home; the denominator is all workers age 16 and older in the commuting table. Divide the numerator by the denominator and multiply by 100. The source asks about the usual means of getting to work, so this is not a count of everyone who ever works remotely.

A person splitting time between home and an employer’s premises is classified through the survey’s usual-work question. Self-employed home-based work can also be included. The measure does not identify the employer’s location, occupation or remote-work policy, and should not be described as the percentage of jobs in the city that are remote.

A five-year window spans changing work patterns

Responses were collected across 2020–2024, a period that includes major changes in working arrangements. The pooled share is not a snapshot of September 2026 employer policies. We do not compare it with a single recent month or portray it as a prediction about future office attendance.

The ranking describes resident workers, wherever their employers are based. A suburb may have a high share of residents working from home even if relatively few large employers are located inside its boundary. Conversely, a city with many office jobs can have residents who commute to workplaces elsewhere. Resident and workplace datasets answer different questions.

Population, worker thresholds and statistical precision

We require at least 50,000 residents in the July 2025 population estimate and at least 5,000 estimated workers in ACS table B08301. Both the derived share and its approximate 90% margin of error must be available. The margin of error must not exceed half the share. These rules reduce the influence of very small or imprecise worker populations without making the ranking a significance test.

Worker counts and denominators remain visible with each estimate. Derived-share uncertainty follows the Census subset-ratio approximation documented in our methodology. Counts and percentages sort by unrounded values; the table displays one decimal place, so adjacent rounded shares can look equal while their exact estimates differ.

For a moving decision, use the rent column and linked housing profiles to compare costs independently. An actual remote-work setup also depends on an address’s broadband availability, upload requirements and workspace. This ranking contains no verified address-level connectivity information and does not infer it from the work-from-home share.

Ranking criteria, exclusions and sources

Starting universe: 19,483 PEP place profiles. Population cutoff: 50,000 residents , applied to July 1, 2025. 824 places meet that cutoff; 822 enter the numbered ranking. 2 are excluded from numbered ranks , including 0 open-ended medians; other exclusions concern unavailable or nonpositive estimates, unavailable MOEs, precision, and the stated worker threshold where applicable .

Ties use competition ranking: two places tied for first share rank 1, and the next is rank 3. The numerical MOE must be at most half the positive point estimate. This is an editorial precision rule. An exact median means a published point estimate, not an error-free measurement. Missing records never become zeros.

Original source: ACS B08301_021 / B08301_001 . Census statistical testing guidance explains how to evaluate differences. Our methodology documents transformations and geographic joins. Source releases and the update log identify publication dates. Submit a correction with a source and page address.

Questions about this city ranking

Which city has the highest work-from-home share?

Sammamish leads this eligible subset of places with at least 50,000 residents and 5,000 surveyed workers. The ranking uses the pooled ACS 2020–2024 usual-work measure.

Does this show the best cities for remote jobs?

It shows where resident workers reported working from home. It does not measure remote job vacancies, employer policies, internet speeds or an individual household’s preferences.