How we score: methodology
Inspect My Chef converts native government health-inspection ratings from eleven countries into a single Universal 0–100 score plus letter grade, so diners can compare establishments at a glance regardless of which country issued the rating.
The Universal score is for at-a-glance comparison. The original native rating is always preserved on every restaurant detail page in the app, alongside the inspection date, jurisdiction, and any cited violations.
The principle
We never modify, summarize, or invent inspection findings. Every Universal score is a deterministic mapping from a publicly issued government rating to a common scale. Restaurants that disagree with their native rating must take that up with the issuing health agency — Inspect My Chef is a translator, not a regulator.
Both the native rating and the conversion table below are public and auditable. If a restaurant believes its Universal score does not match the published table, we will correct it.
How we pick a single number inside the range
Each native rating maps to a Universal range (for example, NYC’s “A” maps to 90–100). To show a single comparable number per restaurant, we split jurisdictions into two groups based on what their health agency actually publishes per establishment.
Group A — granular underlying score available
For NYC (violation-point inspections) and Charlotte / NC (100-point sanitation score), the agency publishes a granular number underneath the letter or category. We linearly interpolate inside the tier using that number, so cleaner restaurants score higher than the tier floor and barely-passing ones sit closer to it.
- NYC. 0 violation points → Universal 100. 13 violation points (the upper cutoff for an A) → Universal 90. B and C tiers interpolate the same way within their cutoffs.
- Charlotte / NC. The 100-point sanitation score is itself already on the 0–100 scale, so we pass it through directly. A restaurant rated 100 by NC shows as Universal 100. A 92 shows as 92.
Group B — letter-only or category-only system
For UK FHRS and Scotland’s FHIS, Toronto DineSafe, Australia’s Scores on Doors, the Nordic Smiley/Smilefjes/Oiva schemes, Sweden’s livsmedelskontroll, France Alim’confiance, and Belgium’s FAVV rating words, the agency itself only buckets restaurants into a few tiers — there is no granular underlying number we can use. For these we pick the top of each tier as the Universal value. A UK 5-star restaurant shows as Universal 100; a 4-star as 89; a 3-star as 79; and so on down the table. The Netherlands is the one exception: the NVWA status has no numeric or letter equivalent, so no Universal score is computed — see the Netherlands card below.
This approach is deterministic and auditable: every step from the native rating to the Universal number is published here, and the code that implements it matches this page row for row.
Conversion table by country
Each country’s native rating system, with the corresponding Universal 0–100 score range and letter grade. The range shows the band the tier maps into; the single number a specific restaurant gets is computed using the rule above. Search to jump to a specific jurisdiction.
Showing all 16 jurisdictions
Example queries
Click any query to run it
| Query | Behavior |
|---|---|
| Country code → all US jurisdictions | |
| Country code → United Kingdom | |
| Country code → Canada | |
| Country code → Australia | |
| Country code → Denmark | |
| Country code → Norway | |
| Country code → Finland | |
| Country code → Sweden | |
| Country code → France | |
| Country code → Belgium | |
| Country code → Netherlands |
United States — New York City
Letter-grade postings (A/B/C) issued from violation-point inspections
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| A | 90–100 | A |
| B | 80–89 | B |
| C | 70–79 | C |
| Below C / closure | 0–69 | F |
New York City issues letter grades based on the count of violation points recorded during an inspection. Lower violation points = higher letter grade. Letter grades are publicly posted at the establishment.
United States — Chicago
Pass / Pass with Conditions / Fail result model (no letter grade)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Pass | 90–100 | A |
| Pass with Conditions | 80–89 | B |
| Fail | 70–79 | C |
Chicago does not issue letter grades. The Chicago Department of Public Health records each inspection as Pass, Pass with Conditions, or Fail; we map those to A, B, and C so they sit on the same Universal scale as the rest of the app. Records marked Out of Business are excluded rather than scored.
United States — Charlotte / Mecklenburg County, NC
100-point sanitation score (NC statewide; half-point deductions)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| 90.0–100 | 90–100 | A |
| 80.0–89.5 | 80–89 | B |
| 70.0–79.5 | 70–79 | C |
| Below 70 | 0–69 | F |
North Carolina uses a continuous 100-point sanitation score across all 100 counties via the CDP NCENVPBL system. Inspectors deduct in half-point increments, so 89.5 is the practical ceiling for a B and 79.5 for a C. Charlotte coverage is the entry point for NC; statewide expansion is on the roadmap.
United States — South Carolina (statewide)
Posted A / B / C grade placard (statewide)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| A | 90–100 | A |
| B | 80–89 | B |
| C | 70–79 | C |
| Below C | 0–69 | F |
South Carolina's Department of Public Health posts an A, B, or C grade at each establishment statewide. We map each posted letter to the top of its Universal band and keep the native grade alongside.
United States — Atlanta / Fulton County, GA
100-point inspection score with A / B / C / U letter grade
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| 90–100 (A) | 90–100 | A |
| 80–89 (B) | 80–89 | B |
| 70–79 (C) | 70–79 | C |
| Below 70 (U — Unsatisfactory) | 0–69 | F |
Georgia issues a continuous 100-point inspection score with a posted letter grade — A, B, C, or U (Unsatisfactory). Because the score is already on a 0–100 scale, we pass it through directly; a U maps to F.
United States — Florida (statewide)
Inspection disposition (no letter grade or numeric score posted)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Inspection Completed – No Further Action / Callback Complied | 95 | A |
| Warning Issued | 85 | B |
| Administrative complaint / determination recommended | 72 | C |
| Emergency order recommended / not complied | 40 | F |
Florida's DBPR does not post a letter grade or public score; it records an inspection disposition. We translate the disposition into a representative Universal value so Florida sorts consistently with graded jurisdictions, and always show the original disposition as the native rating.
United Kingdom
FHRS 0–5 stars (England/Wales/NI) + FHIS Pass / Improvement Required (Scotland)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| 5 stars | 90–100 | A |
| 4 stars | 80–89 | B+ |
| 3 stars | 70–79 | B |
| 2 stars | 60–69 | C |
| 1 star | 50–59 | D |
| 0 stars | 0–49 | F |
| Pass (Scotland — FHIS) | 90–100 | A |
| Improvement Required (Scotland — FHIS) | 50–59 | D |
England, Wales, and Northern Ireland use FHRS star ratings. Scotland uses FHIS, which publishes only Pass or Improvement Required — both schemes are covered, and the app shows the native scheme's verdict alongside the Universal score.
Canada — Toronto
DineSafe — three-state system
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Pass | 90–100 | A |
| Conditional Pass | 60–79 | C |
| Closed | 0–59 | F |
DineSafe's three-state model is coarser than NYC's continuous-score model; see Known Limitations below. The displayed Universal value is the top of the band: Pass → 100, Conditional Pass → 79, Closed → 59.
Australia
Scores on Doors — varies by NSW council, typically 3–5 star
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| 5 stars (Excellent) | 90–100 | A |
| 4 stars (Very Good) | 80–89 | B |
| 3 stars (Good) | 70–79 | C |
| Below 3 stars | 0–69 | F |
Scores on Doors is voluntary in many NSW councils; we display participating councils only.
Sweden
Municipal livsmedelskontroll — letter derived from inspection deviations (avvikelser)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| No deviations (utan anmärkning) | 90–100 | A |
| Minor deviations | 80–89 | B |
| Several / repeated deviations | 70–79 | C |
| Serious deviations | 0–69 | F |
Swedish municipalities publish inspection findings, not a consumer grade. We derive the letter from the recorded deviations (avvikelser) at ingest, ignoring Riskklass — which sets inspection frequency, not outcome. Native findings are preserved in the app.
Denmark
Smiley Scheme — four smiley faces (Findsmiley.dk)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Elite smiley (Elitesmiley) | 90–100 | A |
| Happy smiley (Glad smiley) | 80–89 | B |
| Neutral smiley | 60–79 | C |
| Sad smiley (Sur smiley) | 0–59 | F |
The displayed Universal value is the top of the band: Elite → 100, Happy → 89, Neutral → 79, Sad → 59.
Norway
Smilefjes — four smiley faces (Mattilsynet)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Karakter 0 — smiling face (no remarks) | 90–100 | A |
| Karakter 1 — smiling face (minor remarks) | 80–89 | B |
| Karakter 2 — neutral face (follow-up required) | 60–79 | C |
| Karakter 3 — sad face (serious breaches) | 0–59 | F |
The displayed Universal value is the top of the band: karakter 0 → 100, karakter 1 → 89, karakter 2 → 79, karakter 3 → 59.
Finland
Oiva — A/B/C/D rating system (Ruokavirasto)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| A (Excellent) | 90–100 | A |
| B (Good) | 75–89 | B |
| C (Needs improvement) | 50–74 | C |
| D (Poor) | 0–49 | F |
France
Alim'confiance — four plain-language tiers (DGAL)
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Très satisfaisant (Very satisfactory) | 90–100 | A |
| Satisfaisant (Satisfactory) | 75–89 | B |
| À améliorer (To improve) | 50–74 | C |
| À corriger de manière urgente (Urgent correction) | 0–49 | F |
The displayed Universal value is the top of the band: Très satisfaisant → 100, Satisfaisant → 89, À améliorer → 74, À corriger → 49.
Belgium
FAVV-AFSCA Food Hygiene Rating — five plain-language inspection tiers
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 90–100 | A |
| Very good | 90–100 | A |
| Good | 75–89 | B |
| Satisfactory | 60–74 | C |
| To be improved | 50–59 | D |
| Closure / serious breach | 0–49 | F |
The FAVV publishes a plain-language inspection rating per establishment — not a numeric score. We quantize the rating word to the Universal scale at ingest, displaying the top of the band: Excellent and Very good → 100, Good → 89, Satisfactory → 74, To be improved → 59. The F band is reserved for future closure data; the current FAVV rating feed does not produce it.
Netherlands
NVWA Openbare Inspectieresultaten — qualitative status only
| Native rating | Universal score | Letter |
|---|---|---|
| Voldoet (Complies) | — | — |
| Verbeterpunten vastgesteld (Improvement points identified) | — | — |
| Verscherpt toezicht (Intensified supervision) | — | — |
| Geen recente gegevens (No recent data) | — | — |
The NVWA publishes a qualitative inspection status, not a score — there is no numeric or letter equivalent. We do not compute a Universal score for the Netherlands: the native status is shown as-is in the app.
Known limitations
Perfect cross-country comparability is impossible because the source systems measure different things. We are transparent about where the comparison breaks down:
- Granularity differs. NYC's violation-point system produces a continuous score; Toronto DineSafe issues just three states (Pass / Conditional / Closed). A Toronto "Pass" can include issues that NYC would penalize as a B-grade — the Toronto system simply doesn't distinguish at that level.
- Different criteria are weighted differently. UK FHRS heavily weights structural items (fixed equipment, surfaces, pest control); NYC weights handling violations more aggressively. A 5-star UK rating and an A in NYC are not measuring identical risks even when our table maps both to 90–100.
- Inspection frequency varies. Some jurisdictions inspect annually; others quarterly. We display the inspection date prominently so users know how recent the data is.
- Voluntary schemes have coverage gaps. Australia's Scores on Doors is voluntary in many councils; we display participating councils only and label gaps clearly.
- Translation timing. Newly issued ratings flow through within 24 hours of being published by the source agency. If you spot a mismatch, please email us.
For restaurants: dispute or correct a score
If you believe your Universal score does not match the conversion table above, or your native rating on file with the issuing agency has been updated and our app hasn't reflected the change, email us with your business name, location, and the issuing agency's most recent rating. We will reconcile and respond within 48 hours.
For disputes about the underlying native rating itself, contact your local health agency directly — Inspect My Chef does not have authority to amend government inspection records.
Questions
Methodology questions, jurisdiction-specific concerns, or partnership inquiries: Simtechaffiliate@simtaff.com.
This methodology will be updated as additional jurisdictions come online. See also data sources & licensing.