Original data · October 2026 · last updated 26 October 2026

The 2026 tree-service marketing check

Name: Tree service companies in 50 US states: website, texting, booking and review check, October 2026
Creator: Lirevon
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

By Umair Nawaz, founder of Lirevon Updated October 26, 2026 How we check facts

Before we sold anything, we wanted to know what tree companies across the US actually have: a website, a way to text, a way to book, and how many reviews. So we checked 6842 of them. This page is the result. Quote it, with a link.

6842

tree companies listed in 50 states

92%

of websites cannot be texted or chatted with

93%

have no online booking

21%

have no website at all

4.8

average Google rating

median number of Google reviews

Our own check of 4108 websites, October 2026 (data as of 2026-10-26). Estimates and averages, not a survey. No company is named.

Four things the numbers say

Most offer no way to text. 92% of the websites we loaded show no text or chat option. Many sites still ask a homeowner to call and wait. That is the gap a 30-second text-back walks straight through.
Most have no online booking. 93% have no online booking. A booking link is one of the simplest fixes for a small crew.
Ratings are a tie; review counts are not. The average rating is 4.8. The median review count is 44, 19% have fewer than 10 and 28% have 100 or more. Rating alone cannot separate companies; how many and how recent can.
21% have no website. They run on the Google listing alone. A listing with no website gives a homeowner nothing to read or book from.

Print or save the full report as PDF

By state

State	Companies	Websites checked	No text/chat option	No booking	No website	Avg rating	Median reviews
North Carolina	482	290	89%	95%	26%	4.8	40
Georgia	411	245	91%	94%	26%	4.8	40
Tennessee	391	225	92%	91%	27%	4.8	32
Texas	662	321	92%	92%	22%	4.8	39
Florida	714	450	91%	93%	20%	4.8	54
Virginia	350	222	90%	93%	16%	4.8	50
Ohio	281	168	91%	92%	26%	4.7	49
South Carolina	243	100	98%	89%	25%	4.8	40
Alabama	205	109	92%	93%	27%	4.8	30
Kentucky	95	61	87%	93%	19%	4.7	44
Pennsylvania	233	92	90%	97%	23%	4.7	42
Maryland	116	99	91%	94%	7%	4.9	51
Michigan	173	104	88%	93%	26%	4.7	43
Indiana	134	89	98%	96%	20%	4.6	40
Missouri	132	88	91%	93%	18%	4.8	62
Louisiana	129	85	92%	95%	22%	4.7	33
Oklahoma	101	60	98%	95%	17%	4.8	49
California	187	129	91%	94%	13%	4.8	38
New York	138	92	96%	99%	24%	4.8	45
New Jersey	106	74	93%	97%	20%	4.7	50
Massachusetts	109	71	92%	94%	19%	4.8	50
Connecticut	69	54	94%	94%	16%	4.8	47
Rhode Island	34	0	–	–	12%	4.8	62
New Hampshire	31	25	96%	96%	16%	4.9	53
Maine	29	23	96%	91%	14%	4.8	37
Vermont	28	23	87%	100%	11%	5	28
Delaware	26	20	80%	100%	19%	4.8	89
West Virginia	33	19	100%	89%	39%	4.9	40
Illinois	135	74	93%	92%	32%	4.7	39
Wisconsin	69	49	90%	94%	13%	4.8	59
Minnesota	67	48	92%	92%	10%	4.8	44
Iowa	75	51	94%	92%	24%	4.7	48
Kansas	63	40	98%	95%	24%	4.8	56
Nebraska	68	50	92%	98%	18%	4.7	42
North Dakota	23	13	100%	85%	39%	4.9	13
South Dakota	34	0	–	–	18%	4.7	26
Colorado	70	53	92%	94%	11%	4.8	90
Arizona	76	63	89%	95%	9%	4.7	75
Nevada	70	49	90%	94%	19%	4.8	40
Utah	36	0	–	–	11%	4.8	57
New Mexico	36	21	95%	86%	36%	4.8	43
Washington	107	78	92%	87%	12%	4.7	66
Oregon	70	39	79%	85%	9%	4.9	55
Idaho	35	30	90%	97%	6%	4.9	91
Montana	36	25	92%	96%	28%	4.6	16
Wyoming	16	6	100%	100%	31%	4.2	18
Mississippi	17	11	91%	100%	29%	4.5	27
Arkansas	46	33	97%	100%	15%	4.8	36
Alaska	17	14	100%	93%	6%	4.8	41
Hawaii	34	23	87%	96%	29%	4.7	8
All states	6842	4108	92%	93%	21%	4.8	44

By metro

Metro	Companies	Checked	No text/chat option	No booking	No website	Avg rating	Median reviews
Houston, TX	42	31	90%	90%	14%	4.8	82
San Antonio, TX	41	34	91%	94%	10%	4.8	80
Jacksonville, FL	41	31	87%	90%	10%	4.7	81
Orlando, FL	40	26	92%	96%	15%	4.8	86
Dallas, TX	38	30	87%	90%	16%	4.8	72
Fort Worth, TX	38	28	89%	93%	11%	4.9	67
Sarasota, FL	37	27	85%	93%	5%	4.9	119
Virginia Beach, VA	37	28	89%	89%	16%	4.8	66
Tucson, AZ	37	28	93%	96%	14%	4.7	58
Greensboro, NC	36	26	85%	96%	17%	4.8	34
Marietta, GA	36	22	86%	95%	3%	4.8	70
Corpus Christi, TX	36	17	76%	76%	19%	4.9	32
Conroe, TX	36	17	94%	94%	31%	4.9	13
Colorado Springs, CO	36	27	89%	89%	14%	4.8	80
Austin, TX	35	28	86%	89%	9%	4.9	59
Raleigh, NC	34	29	79%	97%	9%	4.9	105
Clarksville, TN	34	24	92%	88%	15%	4.9	45
Tampa, FL	34	29	86%	97%	6%	4.9	75
St. Petersburg, FL	34	22	95%	86%	24%	4.8	56
Gainesville, FL	34	20	90%	95%	29%	4.8	36
Lakeland, FL	34	21	95%	95%	26%	4.8	52
Las Vegas, NV	34	25	96%	96%	12%	4.8	49
Wilmington, NC	33	23	87%	96%	21%	4.9	67
Katy, TX	33	13	100%	85%	39%	4.7	40
Waco, TX	33	22	100%	100%	18%	4.8	37
Lubbock, TX	33	17	100%	100%	24%	4.7	32
Tallahassee, FL	33	20	80%	100%	27%	4.9	36
Port St. Lucie, FL	33	17	88%	94%	30%	4.8	19
Cincinnati, OH	33	20	90%	90%	18%	4.8	39
Fort Wayne, IN	33	20	100%	95%	24%	4.5	39
Tulsa, OK	33	19	95%	95%	12%	4.8	59
San Jose, CA	33	22	91%	91%	9%	4.7	31
Buffalo, NY	33	19	95%	100%	42%	4.9	3
Phoenix, AZ	33	30	87%	93%	6%	4.8	92
Winston-Salem, NC	32	21	90%	100%	22%	4.9	53
Memphis, TN	32	24	92%	92%	16%	4.8	26
Fort Lauderdale, FL	32	22	86%	77%	12%	4.8	56
Richmond, VA	32	27	85%	93%	12%	4.9	59
Fredericksburg, VA	32	20	90%	95%	25%	4.8	47
Baton Rouge, LA	32	22	86%	95%	12%	4.8	38
Salt Lake City, UT	32	0	–	–	12%	4.8	57
Boise, ID	32	27	89%	96%	6%	4.9	84
Billings, MT	32	22	91%	95%	28%	4.6	17
Durham, NC	31	21	90%	100%	10%	4.9	46
Fayetteville, NC	31	12	83%	83%	45%	4.6	33
Lawrenceville, GA	31	17	82%	94%	32%	4.7	40
Amarillo, TX	31	0	–	–	45%	4.5	11
Sacramento, CA	31	21	100%	100%	10%	4.8	44
Fresno, CA	31	22	95%	95%	16%	4.8	36
Wichita, KS	31	19	95%	100%	35%	4.7	45
Charlotte, NC	30	21	100%	90%	7%	4.9	80
Cleveland, TN	30	9	100%	89%	57%	4.6	11
Murfreesboro, TN	30	21	90%	100%	20%	4.9	40
Miami, FL	30	14	93%	100%	37%	4.9	22
Naples, FL	30	15	87%	87%	27%	4.5	26
Ocala, FL	30	14	100%	93%	30%	4.7	41
Indianapolis, IN	30	19	89%	100%	20%	4.8	62
Rochester, NY	30	23	96%	96%	20%	4.8	100
Knoxville, TN	29	20	95%	80%	17%	4.8	63
Arlington, TX	29	0	–	–	28%	4.5	23
Panama City, FL	29	15	93%	100%	38%	4.8	23
Huntsville, AL	29	23	96%	87%	10%	4.9	35
Lexington, KY	29	20	90%	90%	24%	4.8	39
Springfield, MO	29	13	85%	85%	38%	4.8	57
San Diego, CA	29	18	83%	89%	14%	4.9	43
Rockford, IL	29	14	100%	93%	45%	4.7	33
Eugene, OR	29	7	86%	100%	17%	4.9	26
Asheville, NC	28	25	88%	96%	7%	4.9	39
Atlanta, GA	28	18	78%	94%	25%	4.9	74
Savannah, GA	28	17	94%	94%	25%	4.7	36
Valdosta, GA	28	10	80%	100%	39%	4.8	9
Tyler, TX	28	15	100%	100%	11%	4.7	38
Fort Myers, FL	28	18	100%	94%	18%	4.9	31
Pensacola, FL	28	16	100%	100%	25%	4.8	46
West Palm Beach, FL	28	17	100%	88%	11%	4.8	25
Newport News, VA	28	2	100%	50%	25%	4.8	26
Dayton, OH	28	14	93%	93%	39%	4.7	52
Oklahoma City, OK	28	16	100%	94%	18%	4.7	38
Spokane, WA	28	22	91%	77%	14%	4.4	36
Gastonia, NC	27	12	100%	92%	33%	4.8	23
Alpharetta, GA	27	19	100%	89%	11%	4.8	45
Midland, TX	27	0	–	–	26%	4.8	26
Columbus, OH	27	23	100%	83%	4%	4.9	61
Myrtle Beach, SC	27	11	100%	100%	30%	4.7	19
Montgomery, AL	27	11	91%	91%	26%	4.8	23
Pittsburgh, PA	27	16	94%	88%	15%	4.9	52
Kansas City, MO	27	18	89%	100%	19%	4.8	66
Columbia, MO	27	15	93%	100%	19%	4.6	28
Toms River, NJ	27	18	100%	100%	15%	4.8	48
Sioux Falls, SD	27	0	–	–	15%	4.8	44
Concord, NC	26	13	85%	77%	19%	4.8	24
High Point, NC	26	8	100%	100%	54%	4.6	19
Nashville, TN	26	21	81%	86%	12%	4.9	42
Johnson City, TN	26	16	94%	94%	19%	4.5	40
El Paso, TX	26	0	–	–	31%	4.6	24
Columbia, SC	26	14	93%	93%	19%	4.8	76
Florence, SC	26	0	–	–	62%	4.5	12
Birmingham, AL	26	13	77%	100%	27%	4.8	60
Louisville, KY	26	18	78%	94%	12%	4.7	68
Evansville, IN	26	14	100%	93%	27%	4.2	26
Omaha, NE	26	20	95%	95%	15%	4.9	56
McKinney, TX	25	2	100%	50%	24%	4.7	52
Chesapeake, VA	25	14	86%	100%	20%	4.8	59
Detroit, MI	25	11	82%	100%	44%	4.3	9
Grand Rapids, MI	25	19	84%	89%	20%	4.8	84
New Orleans, LA	25	15	87%	87%	32%	4.7	31
Chicago, IL	25	11	82%	73%	44%	4.8	51
Cedar Rapids, IA	25	17	88%	88%	28%	4.6	28
Roswell, GA	24	12	92%	92%	38%	4.8	22
Cleveland, OH	24	15	87%	93%	29%	4.5	48
Rock Hill, SC	24	0	–	–	33%	4.7	27
Bowling Green, KY	24	13	92%	100%	29%	4.4	10
Los Angeles, CA	24	15	87%	100%	25%	4.7	21
Macon, GA	23	9	89%	100%	48%	4.7	37
Kingsport, TN	23	9	100%	100%	39%	4.7	9
Cookeville, TN	23	0	–	–	57%	4.7	11
Plano, TX	23	16	94%	100%	26%	4.9	22
Daytona Beach, FL	23	13	100%	100%	30%	4.7	50
Melbourne, FL	23	15	80%	87%	22%	4.9	40
Auburn, AL	23	12	83%	83%	35%	4.7	17
Norman, OK	23	15	100%	93%	26%	4.9	32
Wilmington, DE	23	18	78%	100%	17%	4.9	91
Reno, NV	23	16	81%	94%	17%	4.9	35
Greenville, NC	22	10	100%	100%	45%	4.6	15
Augusta, GA	22	14	93%	93%	27%	4.7	40
Roanoke, VA	22	17	100%	94%	5%	4.9	49
Greenville, SC	22	16	100%	94%	9%	4.9	71
Spartanburg, SC	22	7	100%	71%	32%	4.9	28
Tuscaloosa, AL	22	5	100%	100%	36%	4.7	11
Lansing, MI	22	14	86%	100%	23%	4.6	23
St. Louis, MO	22	19	100%	95%	9%	4.8	52
Lincoln, NE	22	17	94%	100%	14%	4.8	25
Hickory, NC	21	12	67%	92%	38%	4.9	43
Jacksonville, NC	21	9	89%	100%	38%	4.7	23
Killeen, TX	21	13	100%	92%	29%	4.7	26
Harrisonburg, VA	21	14	93%	93%	10%	5	50
Lynchburg, VA	21	11	100%	100%	43%	4.4	15
Lafayette, LA	21	14	93%	100%	29%	4.4	17
Peoria, IL	21	7	100%	100%	38%	4.7	11
Milwaukee, WI	21	15	93%	93%	19%	4.7	48
Rochester, MN	21	14	86%	93%	24%	4.7	42
Philadelphia, PA	20	11	91%	100%	40%	4.8	41
Reading, PA	20	0	–	–	30%	4.9	19
Ann Arbor, MI	20	16	75%	94%	10%	4.7	82
Shreveport, LA	20	12	100%	92%	25%	4.6	36
Minneapolis, MN	20	16	94%	81%	0%	4.7	70
Seattle, WA	20	14	86%	100%	10%	4.8	29
Little Rock, AR	20	16	94%	100%	10%	4.9	37
Warner Robins, GA	19	7	86%	100%	53%	4.7	25
Gainesville, GA	19	14	100%	100%	16%	4.9	31
Toledo, OH	19	9	89%	100%	37%	4.3	40
Canton, OH	19	4	100%	75%	53%	4.4	55
Mobile, AL	19	10	100%	100%	32%	4.9	21
Allentown, PA	19	15	93%	100%	5%	4.6	47
South Bend, IN	19	14	100%	100%	21%	4.7	22
Madison, WI	19	12	67%	92%	11%	4.9	37
Des Moines, IA	19	11	91%	91%	32%	4.6	58
Honolulu, HI	19	10	80%	100%	42%	4.7	3
Columbus, GA	18	11	91%	100%	33%	4.9	10
Beaumont, TX	18	0	–	–	50%	4.9	8
Charlottesville, VA	18	12	75%	92%	11%	4.8	24
Charleston, SC	18	14	100%	93%	0%	4.5	40
Frederick, MD	18	13	100%	85%	17%	4.9	31
Portland, ME	18	14	100%	86%	11%	4.7	34
Athens, GA	17	10	100%	90%	35%	4.8	48
Youngstown, OH	17	4	100%	75%	59%	4.6	21
Harrisburg, PA	17	9	78%	100%	29%	4.5	29
Baltimore, MD	17	16	69%	94%	6%	4.9	51
Naperville, IL	17	8	88%	100%	35%	4.6	26
Albuquerque, NM	17	9	100%	78%	35%	4.8	28
Franklin, TN	16	7	71%	100%	0%	4.8	6
Jackson, TN	16	6	83%	100%	56%	4.5	12
Annapolis, MD	16	11	91%	100%	19%	5	25
Flint, MI	16	3	100%	100%	56%	4.7	19
Newark, NJ	16	9	100%	100%	31%	4.5	34
Charleston, WV	16	8	100%	100%	44%	4.9	41
Fargo, ND	16	10	100%	80%	31%	4.9	9
Cheyenne, WY	16	6	100%	100%	31%	4.2	18
Fayetteville, AR	16	11	100%	100%	19%	4.8	23
Chattanooga, TN	15	10	90%	90%	20%	4.8	32
Scranton, PA	15	0	–	–	53%	4.7	12
Albany, NY	15	11	91%	100%	7%	4.2	33

How we collected this data

Last updated 26 October 2026.

1. The sample

We searched Google Maps for "tree service" and "tree removal", city by city, in metro areas across all 50 states. The listings were pulled through SerpApi, a search data service, between 23 and 25 October 2026. We kept the first one or two pages of results for each search. After cleaning, 182 metro cities had 15 or more tree companies, and each of those gets its own row in the tables. Companies in smaller towns still count in their state total.

2. The cleaning

Duplicates: a listing was dropped if its Google place ID, phone number or website was already in the list.
Franchises: large national tree care brands and franchises were removed, using our own list of names.
Closed: listings Google marks as permanently closed were removed.
Not tree work: a listing stayed only if its name or Google category had a tree word in it (tree, arborist, stump, tree removal, tree trimming, tree care). Lawn care and landscaping listings without one were removed.

That left 6842 companies. Ratings and review counts are as Google showed them on the day we pulled them.

3. The website check

For every company with a website, our own script downloaded the home page between 23 and 26 October 2026. It did not run the page's scripts and did not open other pages. It then searched the page code for:

A text or chat option: the words "text us", or the code of a common chat or website-texting widget.
Online booking: words like "book online", "schedule online", "book now" or "schedule now", or a link to a common scheduling or booking tool.

4108 websites gave a result. A site that did not load within 10 seconds, or blocked our script, counts as "not checked", never as a fail. Website checks for Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah were not run yet, so those states show a dash. The texting and booking shares are shares of the checked websites, not of all companies. The "no website" share is of all companies.

4. The limits

"No text or chat option" is about the website only. It does not mean the business phone cannot receive texts. We did not text or call anyone for this check.
Some options can be missed. A chat box or booking link that loads later through scripts, or sits on another page, is not seen. So the true share without a text or booking option may be a little lower than shown.
Some can be counted wrongly. A matched word or tool code does not always mean a working option for customers.
Google shows a limited number of results per search, so some smaller companies are not in the sample. Small metro rows can move a lot when a few companies change.
What it is not: not a survey, not a ranking, not a claim about any single company. Market snapshots like this go stale; we will re-run it in 2027.

The open data files are on the data page. Want the numbers for a metro that is not here? Ask and we will run it.

Where does your company stand?

The free audit runs the same checks on your business, plus an after-hours test call. Scorecard in 24 hours.

Get my free audit

Questions people ask

What is the 2026 tree-service marketing check?

It is a snapshot of 6842 tree service companies in 50 US states, checked in October 2026 for a website, a way to text, online booking and Google reviews. We ran it before selling anything, to see what tree companies actually have.

How many tree companies did you check?

6842 companies in 182 metro areas across 50 states. We loaded and checked 4108 websites; sites that did not load are counted as not checked, never as a fail.

What share of tree company websites cannot be texted?

92% of the 4108 websites we checked showed no text or chat option on the home page. That does not mean the phone number cannot receive texts; it means the website never offers it. A missed-call text-back fills that gap by replying from your business number within about 30 seconds.

How many tree companies have no online booking?

93% of the websites we checked had no online booking page or scheduling link.

How many tree companies have no website at all?

21% of the companies we found run on a Google listing alone, with no website.

What was the average Google rating?

The average rating was 4.8 and the median review count was 44. 19% of companies had fewer than 10 reviews and 28% had 100 or more.

How did you find the companies?

We took every Google Maps result for "tree service" and "tree removal" in each metro, removed duplicates (same Google place ID, phone number or website), and dropped franchises, businesses with no tree words in their name or category, and listings marked closed.

Is this a survey or a ranking?

No. It is a count of what is public on websites and Google listings. It is not a survey, not a ranking and not a claim about any single company.

Can I quote or reuse the data?

Yes, with a link back to this page. The data is shared under the CC BY 4.0 licence. The data page has downloads.

Will you update the report?

Last updated 26 October 2026. We plan to re-run the check in 2027. Market snapshots like this go stale, so always read the date.

Can you run the check for my metro?

Yes. If your metro is not in the tables, ask and we will run it. Your state also has its own data page.

Keep reading: open data downloads, the US map of state pages, tree care by state, what a missed-call text-back is and our offers. Also see services and pricing.