Pet Care Rankings
Breeds and metros ranked by grooming costs, popularity, and care complexity. Based on industry pricing data and AKC statistics.
Most Expensive Metros
Metro areas with the highest pet care costs relative to the national average.
- 1 New York 1.50x
- 2 San Francisco 1.48x
- 3 San Jose 1.45x
- 4 Bellevue 1.42x
- 5 Honolulu 1.42x
Cheapest Metros
Metro areas with the most affordable pet grooming and care prices.
- 1 Laredo 0.76x
- 2 Jackson 0.76x
- 3 Lubbock 0.78x
- 4 Shreveport 0.78x
- 5 Mobile 0.78x
Most Expensive Breeds
Dog breeds with the highest average grooming service costs.
- 1 Bernese Mountain Dog $102
- 2 Great Pyrenees $102
- 3 Leonberger $102
- 4 Newfoundland $102
- 5 St. Bernard $102
Cheapest Breeds to Groom
Dog breeds with the lowest average grooming service costs.
- 1 Chinese Crested $24
- 2 Basenji $27
- 3 Boston Terrier $27
- 4 Chihuahua $27
- 5 Dachshund $27
Most Popular Breeds
Top dog breeds by AKC popularity ranking.
- 1 French Bulldog #1
- 2 Labrador Retriever #2
- 3 Golden Retriever #3
- 4 German Shepherd #4
- 5 Poodle #5
Most Grooming-Intensive Breeds
Breeds requiring the most frequent and complex grooming care.
- 1 Barbet 1.40x
- 2 Bedlington Terrier 1.40x
- 3 Bichon Frise 1.40x
- 4 Cockapoo 1.40x
- 5 Goldendoodle 1.40x
How PlainPetCare Rankings Are Compiled
Our rankings are computed directly from the upstream dataset — not editorially curated and not influenced by advertisers. Each ranking surfaces a clear, reproducible metric (for example, count of records per jurisdiction, share of records within a category, or rate per capita), and the underlying numbers are visible on the associated record pages so you can verify them. We recompute rankings whenever the upstream data refreshes, and we publish the refresh cadence on the methodology page.
What Rankings Mean (and What They Do Not)
A ranking is a useful lens — it tells you where to start looking — but it is not a judgment about quality, safety, or reputation. Being at the top of a count-based ranking typically reflects scale: more records in a jurisdiction, more entities in a category. It does not mean "better" or "worse." Whenever a ranking could be misread as a quality claim, we include an explanatory note on the page. When a ranking is rate-based (per capita, per thousand, share), we describe the denominator so you can sanity-check whether the normalization fits your question.
Why We Publish These Rankings
Rankings make large public datasets navigable. Most visitors arrive with a question ("Which jurisdiction has the most records?" or "Where is this category concentrated?") and benefit from seeing a ranked list with direct links to the full records. Publishing ranked views of public data is a long-established practice in civic journalism; we are careful to surface the raw numbers, link to the official source, and avoid editorial spin. If a ranking ever implies a value judgment not supported by the data, please email us at the address on the contact page and we will review the wording.
Methodology, Sources, and Corrections
Every ranking is derived from the source dataset linked on the methodology page. We do not blend proprietary signals; we do not substitute editor opinion for data. If you believe a ranking is miscomputed or that a record is misclassified, please contact us with the specific record ID and the expected correction, and we will investigate within the next refresh cycle. Corrections that affect the published ranking are rolled forward immediately; minor formatting fixes go out with the next scheduled refresh.