Fuel & Convenience research
America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile
Most fuel sites compete with somebody within a mile. This ranking measures how many: the share of a metro's confirmed retail sites with two or more rival parent groups operating within one straight-line mile, across every metro with at least 150 sites.
In the typical ranked metro, 73 percent of fuel sites have two or more rival parent groups within a mile, and 88 percent have at least one. The range is wide: 95 percent of sites in San Jose face two or more rival groups, 40 percent in Wichita. Larger metros are more contested, but size does not settle it. Minneapolis-St. Paul, with more than 1,100 sites, ranks 138th of 159.
A metro's site count says how much fuel retail there is. It does not say how much of it competes head to head. We asked a narrower question of all 137,201 confirmed retail fuel sites in the country: how many different parent groups operate a site within one mile of this one? One rival is the norm, at 86 percent of sites nationally. Two or more is the bar used here, because it is the point at which a site is priced in view of more than one neighbor. Nationally 70 percent of sites reach it; every ranking below is the share of a metro's sites that do.
In the ten most contested metros, 86 to 95 percent of sites have two or more rival groups within a mile
Ranked by the share of confirmed retail sites with two or more rival parent groups within one mile
| # | Metro | Sites | Rival groups within a mile | 2+ rivals | Any rival | Sites per 10k residents | Top-3 share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA | 429 | 94.9% | 97.7% | 2.14 | 34% | |
| 2 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA | 2,819 | 93.7% | 97.6% | 2.14 | 43% | |
| 3 | Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV | 810 | 93.1% | 96.9% | 3.58 | 55% | |
| 4 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 1,010 | 90.7% | 96.1% | 2.13 | 34% | |
| 5 | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL | 1,856 | 90.3% | 96.8% | 3.02 | 34% | |
| 6 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ | 4,361 | 88.0% | 94.8% | 2.17 | 24% | |
| 7 | Colorado Springs, CO | 273 | 87.9% | 94.9% | 3.62 | 56% | |
| 8 | Urban Honolulu, HI | 166 | 86.7% | 92.2% | 1.63 | 53% | |
| 9 | New Haven, CT | 225 | 86.7% | 93.3% | — | 21% | |
| 10 | Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX | 3,783 | 86.1% | 93.6% | 5.29 | 23% |
- Rival groups within a mile:
- None
- One
- Two or three
- Four to six
- Seven or more
Cite this table: G2M Insights, "America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile," G2M Fuel & Convenience Research, edition 2026-09-13-v15, g2m.ai/research/fuel-convenience/most-competitive-fuel-markets.
Seven of the ten have more than 800 sites, and the three that do not, Colorado Springs, Urban Honolulu and New Haven, have fewer than 300. In San Jose, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, two thirds or more of sites have four or more rival groups within a mile. Colorado Springs reaches the top ten a different way: 45 percent of its sites face two or three rival groups and only 4 percent face seven or more. Its rivalry is broad rather than deep.
Concentration does not decide the ranking. Inside the top ten, the three largest parent groups hold 21 percent of identified sites in New Haven and 56 percent in Colorado Springs.
28 of the 159 metros clear 80 percent. The median metro is at 73 percent, and 2 fall below 50: Spartanburg and Wichita.
See all 159 metros ranked Searchable by metro and state, with every supporting column.
Benchmark each of your metros against the 73 percent median, not against the national figure. Above 80 percent, almost every site you run there has two or more rival groups within a mile. Below 60 percent, a meaningful share of your sites has one neighbor to watch, or none.
Larger metros are more contested, and the two big exceptions are the most spread out
Site count against the share of sites with two or more rival groups, all ranked metros
Cite this chart: G2M Insights, "America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile," G2M Fuel & Convenience Research, edition 2026-09-13-v15, g2m.ai/research/fuel-convenience/most-competitive-fuel-markets.
| Confirmed sites in the metro | Metros | Median 2+ rivals | Lowest | Highest | Median sites per 100 sq mi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 or more | 23 | 79.2% | 61.1% | 93.7% | 35.1 |
| 400 to 999 | 32 | 74.4% | 51.7% | 94.9% | 15.8 |
| 250 to 399 | 41 | 70.6% | 50.3% | 87.9% | 15.4 |
| 150 to 249 | 63 | 68.0% | 39.9% | 86.7% | 10.5 |
Cite this table: G2M Insights, "America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile," G2M Fuel & Convenience Research, edition 2026-09-13-v15, g2m.ai/research/fuel-convenience/most-competitive-fuel-markets.
The cloud tilts upward. Among the 23 metros with 1,000 or more sites, 19 sit above the median and 9 are in the top 25; New York ranks 6th and Los Angeles 2nd. Size works through density. The 1,000-site metros have a median of 35.0 sites per 100 square miles of land; the 150-to-249 band has 10.6. More sites on the same land puts more of them within a mile of one another.
The two exceptions are Minneapolis-St. Paul (138th, 61 percent) and Phoenix (103rd, 68 percent). Both have more than 1,100 sites and both are among the most concentrated large markets, with the three largest parent groups holding 63 to 65 percent of identified sites. Concentration is not what holds them back: Orlando and Tampa are as concentrated and rank 34th and 37th. What sets Minneapolis and Phoenix apart is spread. Phoenix has 8.3 sites per 100 square miles and Minneapolis 15.8, against a median of 35.0 for metros of their size. Fewer sites per square mile means fewer neighbors within a mile of each one.
The 23 metros with 1,000 or more confirmed sites
| # | Metro | Sites | 2+ rivals | Any rival | Sites per 10k residents | Top-3 share | Sites per 100 sq mi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA | 2,819 | 93.7% | 97.6% | 2.14 | 43% | 58.1 |
| 4 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA | 1,010 | 90.7% | 96.1% | 2.13 | 34% | 40.9 |
| 5 | Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL | 1,856 | 90.3% | 96.8% | 3.02 | 34% | 36.6 |
| 6 | New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ | 4,361 | 88.0% | 94.8% | 2.17 | 24% | 71.0 |
| 10 | Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands, TX | 3,783 | 86.1% | 93.6% | 5.29 | 23% | 42.8 |
| 11 | Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI | 1,915 | 85.7% | 94.6% | 4.36 | 24% | 49.2 |
| 15 | Denver-Aurora-Centennial, CO | 1,018 | 84.4% | 94.5% | 3.44 | 48% | 12.2 |
| 19 | Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX | 3,081 | 82.9% | 92.3% | 4.03 | 35% | 35.5 |
| 25 | Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA | 1,125 | 80.8% | 92.4% | 2.80 | 37% | 19.2 |
| 29 | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN | 2,687 | 79.6% | 92.4% | 2.84 | 34% | 38.8 |
| 30 | Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV | 1,638 | 79.5% | 90.4% | 2.61 | 42% | 27.1 |
| 32 | Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA | 3,081 | 79.2% | 91.2% | 5.05 | 17% | 35.1 |
| 34 | Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL | 1,041 | 78.8% | 91.4% | 3.89 | 63% | 29.8 |
| 37 | Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL | 1,210 | 78.6% | 91.7% | 3.81 | 57% | 48.1 |
| 38 | Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX | 1,072 | 78.4% | 90.6% | 4.70 | 32% | 25.4 |
| 45 | Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA | 1,278 | 77.4% | 91.2% | 2.78 | 56% | 4.7 |
| 48 | San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX | 1,048 | 77.0% | 91.7% | 4.10 | 41% | 14.3 |
| 53 | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | 1,719 | 76.3% | 90.9% | 2.75 | 39% | 37.3 |
| 55 | Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH | 1,432 | 76.1% | 90.0% | 2.90 | 30% | 41.1 |
| 101 | St. Louis, MO-IL | 1,058 | 68.7% | 86.8% | 3.75 | 32% | 13.5 |
| 103 | Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, AZ | 1,215 | 68.5% | 87.9% | 2.51 | 65% | 8.3 |
| 115 | Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC | 1,068 | 65.8% | 84.3% | 4.02 | 36% | 19.1 |
| 138 | Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI | 1,113 | 61.1% | 85.4% | 3.02 | 63% | 15.8 |
Cite this table: G2M Insights, "America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile," G2M Fuel & Convenience Research, edition 2026-09-13-v15, g2m.ai/research/fuel-convenience/most-competitive-fuel-markets.
If your network is in the largest metros, plan for two or more rival groups within a mile of four sites in five. Treat Minneapolis-St. Paul and Phoenix as the exceptions they are: more of your sites there have a single neighbor or none, and the competitive set is read site by site rather than metro-wide.
Two metros with the same score can face very different rivals
Concentration, independents and hypermarket fuel in three pairs of metros with matching scores
The share of sites with two or more rival groups says how contested a metro is. It does not say who is doing the contesting. The table takes three pairs of metros that land within a point of each other on the measure and shows what produced the score in each: how much of the market the three largest parent groups hold, how much is run by independents, how many sites have a grocery or club fuel site within a mile, and how many distinct parent groups there are for every 100 sites.
| Metro | 2+ rivals | Top-3 share | Independents | Hypermarket fuel within a mile | Parent groups per 100 sites |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado Springs, CO | 87.9% | 56% | 23% | 34% | 24 |
| New Haven, CT | 86.7% | 21% | 69% | 24% | 52 |
| New Orleans-Metairie, LA | 82.8% | 18% | 78% | 10% | 48 |
| Salt Lake City-Murray, UT | 81.9% | 63% | 19% | 31% | 18 |
| Modesto, CA | 85.1% | 41% | 47% | 15% | 37 |
| Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX | 78.7% | 11% | 71% | 22% | 52 |
Cite this table: G2M Insights, "America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile," G2M Fuel & Convenience Research, edition 2026-09-13-v15, g2m.ai/research/fuel-convenience/most-competitive-fuel-markets.
Colorado Springs and New Haven land within a point of each other, at 88 and 87 percent. In Colorado Springs the three largest parent groups hold 56 percent of identified sites, a third of all sites have a grocery or club fuel site within a mile, and there are 24 parent groups for every 100 sites. In New Haven the top three hold 21 percent, independents run 69 percent of identified sites, and there are 52 parent groups per 100 sites. The same score describes a market of a few chains and a market of many owners.
New Orleans and Salt Lake City repeat the split at 83 and 82 percent: independents run 78 percent of identified sites in New Orleans and 19 percent in Salt Lake City, where the top three hold 63 percent. Modesto and Beaumont match at 85 and 79 percent on the measure but sit at 41 and 11 percent on top-three share.
Across all ranked metros, concentration barely relates to the ranking: the correlation between the top-three share and the two-or-more measure is -0.13. Hypermarket fuel does relate, at 0.38. Metros where more sites have a grocery or club fuel site within a mile rank higher, Denver, Seattle and Colorado Springs among them, because those sites sit on retail lots that fuel chains also chose.
Before acting on a metro's score, read who produced it. A contested market of chains and a contested market of independents call for different responses: in the first, a handful of chain pricing teams set the street; in the second, dozens of owner-operators do, and no single competitor move explains what you see.
Grocery and club fuel sites sit in the most contested locations, the rural chains in the least
Share of each operator's locator-confirmed sites with two or more rival groups within a mile
Cite this chart: G2M Insights, "America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile," G2M Fuel & Convenience Research, edition 2026-09-13-v15, g2m.ai/research/fuel-convenience/most-competitive-fuel-markets.
Walmart, Costco and Kroger fuel sites sit in the most contested locations in the country: 85 to 92 percent have two or more rival groups within a mile, because they sit on retail lots that fuel chains also chose. Murphy USA, most of whose sites are on Walmart lots, is at 84 percent, and the company-operated ampm and Thorntons networks at the same level. At the other end, Casey's, Kwik Trip, Yesway, Stewart's Shops and Kwik Fill run networks where 48 to 59 percent of sites face two or more rival groups; between 29 and 70 percent of their sites lie outside any metro. Of the two largest convenience networks, 7-Eleven is at 71 percent and Circle K at 66.
These figures describe only the sites an operator's own store locator lists. A site that carries a brand from a map feed but is absent from the company's list is excluded, so stale signage cannot inflate a network's figure. Parent groups are as published in this edition: Speedway sites count under 7-Eleven, Smith's and Fred Meyer under Kroger. Operators whose locators returned no records in this acquisition are not shown.
Compare your network to its format, not to the national 70 percent. A grocery fuel network at 90 percent and a small-town convenience chain at 55 percent are both normal; what matters is whether your sites in a given metro sit above or below the norm for the kind of network you run.
In the ten least contested metros, 40 to 58 percent of sites have two or more rival groups within a mile
Published with the full distribution of rival groups, not as a bare list
These ten clear the same 150-site floor as the leaders, so what separates them is not size. It is how many sites have one neighbor or none.
| # | Metro | Sites | Rival groups within a mile | No rival | 2+ rivals | Largest group's share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 | Peoria, IL | 172 | 19.2% | 57.6% | 26% | |
| 151 | Syracuse, NY | 226 | 25.7% | 57.1% | 20% | |
| 152 | Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR | 183 | 15.3% | 56.3% | 17% | |
| 153 | Portland-South Portland, ME | 219 | 28.8% | 56.2% | 20% | |
| 154 | McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | 283 | 17.3% | 53.0% | 60% | |
| 155 | Tulsa, OK | 402 | 20.9% | 51.7% | 25% | |
| 156 | Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton, NC | 205 | 24.4% | 51.7% | 7% | |
| 157 | Greenville-Anderson-Greer, SC | 352 | 21.9% | 50.3% | 11% | |
| 158 | Spartanburg, SC | 163 | 22.1% | 48.5% | 18% | |
| 159 | Wichita, KS | 203 | 27.1% | 39.9% | 22% |
- Rival groups within a mile:
- None
- One
- Two or three
- Four to six
- Seven or more
Cite this table: G2M Insights, "America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile," G2M Fuel & Convenience Research, edition 2026-09-13-v15, g2m.ai/research/fuel-convenience/most-competitive-fuel-markets.
Wichita is last. Twenty-seven percent of its 203 sites have no rival group within a mile, 33 percent have exactly one, and none has seven or more. Portland, Maine and Syracuse have the highest no-rival shares in the ranking, at 29 and 26 percent. Three of the ten are in the Carolinas, and none has more than 402 sites.
Concentration runs both ways here too. In McAllen the largest parent group holds 60 percent of identified sites, the highest share of any ranked metro; in Hickory the largest holds 7 percent. Both are in the bottom ten.
These are proximity findings from public site records. They say nothing about what these sites sell, charge or earn.
A low-scoring metro is where your own offer carries the most weight and where one new fuel site changes the most. Watch permits and land transactions there more closely than in a metro already at 90 percent.
The ranking holds under other ways of measuring proximity
Rank agreement between the primary measure and four alternatives
Any ranking of this kind depends on how proximity is measured, so we ranked the same metros four other ways and compared the orderings. The table shows the rank correlation of each alternative with the primary ranking; 1.00 would mean an identical list.
| Alternative ranking | Rank correlation |
|---|---|
| Share of sites with two or more rival groups within one mile (primary) | 1.00 |
| Mean number of rival sites within one mile | 0.92 |
| Share of sites with any rival within one mile | 0.91 |
| Median distance to the nearest rival, closest first | 0.80 |
| Sites per 100 square miles of land | 0.35 |
Cite this table: G2M Insights, "America's Most Competitive Fuel Markets: 159 Metros Ranked by Rivals Within a Mile," G2M Fuel & Convenience Research, edition 2026-09-13-v15, g2m.ai/research/fuel-convenience/most-competitive-fuel-markets.
Ranking by the average number of rival sites within a mile, or by the share of sites with any rival at all, reproduces this ranking closely. Distance to the nearest rival agrees less, because it records one neighbor per site rather than how many there are. Site density per square mile produces a different list, which is why density is a supporting column here and not the measure.
The 150-site floor decides which metros are ranked, not where anyone ranks. 12 metros with 142 to 149 sites, Manchester-Nashua, York-Hanover and Duluth among them, fall just below it and appear in the Market Explorer with their rank withheld and the reason printed.
Use the two-or-more share as the headline and the any-rival share as the check. A metro that scores high on the second and low on the first has many paired sites and few clusters, which is a different market to compete in.
What it means for your network
Five findings, read from the operator's side of the site
- Benchmark by metro against the median. The typical ranked metro puts two or more rival groups within a mile of 73 percent of sites. Your metros above 80 percent and below 60 percent are different markets and deserve different plans.
- Size predicts, but check the exceptions. The largest metros are the most contested. Minneapolis-St. Paul and Phoenix are large, spread out and far less contested than their size suggests.
- Read who produced the score. Colorado Springs and New Haven score alike; one is a market of chains and the other of independents. The response to each is different.
- Your format sets your norm. Grocery and club fuel sites run at 85 to 92 percent, small-town convenience chains at 48 to 59. Compare your metros to the norm for your kind of network.
- The least contested metros are where entry changes the most. In Wichita a quarter of sites have no rival within a mile. One new fuel site there moves more than ten in Los Angeles.
These are proximity findings from public site records. They locate where a site has rivals in sight; they do not say what any site sells, charges or earns, and they are not market shares.
Methodology and limitations
Sources, definitions, scope and disclosures
Data and edition
Public site records only: Overture Maps Places (August 2026), AllThePlaces brand locator scrapes (September 2026 run), Foursquare OS Places (August 2026), the EPA UST Finder composite (2018 to 2021), the current tank registries of Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Florida and Georgia, and EPA FRS. Edition 2026-09-13-v15, site universe built 13 September 2026. This article is pinned to that edition and does not change when the Market Explorer's data refreshes.
A site
A cluster of place records within about 130 feet (40 meters), confirmed when two independent public sources agree on it or the operator's own store locator lists it. Unattended commercial cardlocks and fleet islands are excluded from every count and from every rival measure. A site is a place record, not a store count, a volume or proof of fuel sales today.
Rival parent group
A confirmed retail site of a different parent group within one mile (1,609 meters), measured in a straight line on a national equal-area plane, across state lines. Parent groups follow a reviewed brand crosswalk as of this edition. A site whose operator is not public, a supplier flag with no chain name, is its own parent and a rival to every other site. Proximity is not drive time and is not evidence of price competition.
Geography
Metropolitan Statistical Areas on the Census Bureau's July 2023 delineation, 393 in all. Sites are assigned by coordinates to county and metro. Puerto Rico is held out of every published grain, so its 6 metros are absent by design.
Rankable metros
At least 150 confirmed retail sites and a confirmation rate of 80 percent or more. 159 of 393 qualify; 228 metros have fewer than 150 sites and none fails the confirmation gate. The ranked metros hold 82 percent of all metro sites.
Supporting columns
Sites per 10,000 residents uses the 2020 decennial population of the metro; commuter and through-traffic demand is not in the denominator, and the figure is unavailable for the four Connecticut metros because the 2020-to-2025 tract crosswalk for Connecticut's planning regions is not loaded. Top-three share is the three largest parent groups' share of sites whose operator is public. It is a share of sites, not of volume, and the published parent rankings behind it keep the top 25 parent groups per market.
Operator names
Operators are named in one section only, and only from sites their own store locator lists. The metro tables carry the largest group's share but not its name, because a share computed on map-feed brand names can be inflated by stale signage. Parent groups describe the crosswalk as of this edition: the brand on the canopy may differ from the parent published, and an acquisition completed after the crosswalk revision is not consolidated.
What the data is not
Site counts are not fuel volume, revenue, margin or customer market share. Shares of sites are not market shares. A tank registration is not proof that a site sells fuel today, and a map-feed brand tag is not an operator. Nothing here is real time; every source carries its own vintage.
No trend
One structure edition is published. When a second comparable edition exists we will report change; until then no growth, entry or exit is claimed.
No price
The EIA publishes retail prices for the nation, regions, nine states and ten cities, and nothing below the state, so proximity cannot be set against price at metro grain. How a site responds to the rivals around it requires the operator's own price and volume history and is not derivable from public data.
Full rankings and explorer
All 159 metros with every supporting column, pinned to edition 2026-09-13-v15. The Fuel & Convenience Market Explorer follows the current release, shows every metro including those below the floor, and may differ.