The same field is 96.7% full in Toronto and 41.4% in a remote region
Phone, hours, rating and website vary enormously by city and by vertical. Two independent samples, 16,725 businesses, and why an average would be the wrong thing to publish.
Field coverage in Google Maps data is a property of the market rather than of the scraper. Measured on 3 September 2026 across two independent samples — 12,693 businesses in 10 regions and 12 verticals in a Latin American market, and 4,032 businesses across 8 cities in seven countries — `phone_e164` ran from 96.7% in Toronto to 41.4% in remote regions, and `website` from 87.4% in Toronto to 5.7%. By vertical the spread is just as wide: dentists return a phone on 99.5% of rows and law firms on 100%, while gyms manage 28.0% because many publish a booking site instead. Name, address and coordinates are 100% everywhere.
Key points
Two independent samples on the same date: 12,693 businesses across 10 regions and 12 verticals, and 4,032 across 8 cities in seven countries.
The most common question about Google Maps data is “what percentage of businesses have a phone number?” The honest answer is another question: where, and what kind of business?
Two samples, one date
Both measured on 3 September 2026. The first is 12,693 businesses across 10 regions and 12 verticals in a Latin American market. The second is 4,032 businesses across 8 cities in the US, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile and Argentina. They were taken independently and they agree on the shape of the result.
By market
Field
Toronto
Miami
Mexico City
Remote regions
name, address, lat/lng, place_id
Toronto100%
Miami100%
Mexico City100%
Remote regions100%
phone_e164
Toronto96.7%
Miami77.7%
Mexico City68.2%
Remote regions41.4%
opening_hours
Toronto96.1%
Miami74.3%
Mexico City81.9%
Remote regions48.9%
rating
Toronto97.5%
Miami77.0%
Mexico City92.0%
Remote regions55.5%
website
Toronto87.4%
Miami74.0%
Mexico City40.0%
Remote regions5.7%
reviews_count
Toronto0.4%
Miami11.6%
Mexico City0.0%
Remote regions0.3%
website is the extreme case: 87.4% in Toronto and 5.7% in remote regions, a factor of fifteen. Small businesses in those regions largely do not have websites, which is a fact about those businesses.
By vertical
Within a single market, the vertical matters as much as the city. Measured phone coverage: dentists 99.5%, law firms 100%, gyms 28.0%. Gyms publish a booking site rather than a number — again a fact about gyms, not about extraction.
The fields that are always there
Name, address, latitude, longitude and place_id were at 100% in every market measured. So even in the thinnest market, every row is a located, identifiable business that can be joined to other Google data — on place_id.
Why no average is published
A field ranging from 96.7% to 41.4% has no useful mean. Any single number would describe neither Toronto nor a remote region, and somebody planning a lead-generation run against it would be wrong in both directions — over-promised in one market and under-sold in the other.
Planning against a range
Run the census, pick the market, and check the closest published figure to it before committing. If contactability is the point of the exercise, a market at 41.4% phone coverage is a different business case from one at 96.7%, and that is worth knowing before the invoice rather than after.
Frequently asked questions
▸What phone-number fill rate should I expect?
It depends on the market far more than on the tool: 96.7% in Toronto, 77.7% in Miami, 68.2% in Mexico City and 41.4% in remote regions. By vertical it ranges from 100% for law firms to 28.0% for gyms.
▸Why do gyms have so few phone numbers?
Because many of them publish a booking site instead of a number. That is a fact about how gyms present themselves rather than a failure of extraction, and it is why vertical is published alongside market.
▸Which fields are always present?
Name, address, latitude, longitude and place_id were at 100% in every market measured, so a row's identity and location are never in doubt even where the contact fields are thin.
▸Why not publish an overall average?
Because a field running from 96.7% to 41.4% has no meaningful average — the mean describes neither Toronto nor a remote region, and somebody planning against it would be wrong in both directions.
Sources
Every URL below was requested and returned a page on the date shown.
The first pass extracts no businesses at all. It tells you which parts of an area are dense, which belong to a neighbouring country and which are empty — before you spend anything.
Tools advertising emails with Google Maps data are getting them somewhere else. Zero email strings across three verticals, in the search response and on the place page.
