Review activity in Sugar Land, Texas

Sugar Land, Texas scores 99.6 out of 100 (very active) for recent published-review activity. In the last 90 days, 72 reviews reached 23 of 75 public businesses.

Daily snapshot: 2026-09-04

Activity score
99.6
90-day coverage
30.7%
Reviews / 100 businesses
85.3
Median freshness
4 months

How current are massage reviews in Sugar Land?

Each component is 0–100 against the same eligible-region national P5–P95 scale.

Explainable components of the Review Activity Index score
ComponentWeightPointsObserved value
Coverage40%100.023 of 75 businesses received a review in 90 days (30.7%).
Velocity30%100.085.3 capped reviews per 100 businesses in 90 days (72 observed before the cap).
Freshness30%98.8The median business with review history was last reviewed 4 months ago.

Comparison snapshot

This area
99.6 · Very active
United States
48.2 · Moderate

Other scored areas in Texas

Review activity near Sugar Land, Texas
RankAreaScoreCoverageReviews 90dFreshness
1Frisco, Texas100.026.0%1334 months
2Coppell, Texas98.927.5%304 months
3Cedar Park, Texas98.524.1%394 months
4Kingwood, Texas97.422.9%634 months
5Georgetown, Texas97.125.3%434 months
6Flower Mound, Texas95.925.0%343 months
7Allen, Texas95.827.7%615 months
8Lubbock, Texas95.823.7%1075 months
9Tyler, Texas88.825.7%335 months
10Brownsville, Texas88.621.1%374 months

Looking for businesses and reviews? Browse massage in Sugar Land.

How to read the index

The 0–100 score is relative to eligible US regions in this snapshot. Coverage contributes 40%, velocity 30% and freshness 30%; each component is scaled against the national P5–P95 range. It measures review activity in this directory, not business quality, safety, demand or the full offline market.

A score is published only with at least 30 public businesses and 50 reviews in 365 days. Ranking additionally requires at least 20 reviews in 90 days. For velocity, any one business contributes at most 8.0 recent reviews in this snapshot (the national P95 among businesses with recent reviews).

Review time uses visit date when known, then source publication date, then the date the review entered Rubmp. Future dates are clamped to the snapshot time. Read the full methodology and caveats.