America’s Unhealthiest Fast-Food Chains: Looking at the Numbers Behind the Cheeseburgers
Fast-food cheeseburgers are a quick fix for hunger and a guilty pleasure for millions of Americans, whatever the occasion.
Although it might not be the healthiest option out there, some cheeseburgers are better than others, which makes them a suitable alternative for those looking for a cheat day treat.
To identify which fast-food chains pack the most dietary damage, the team here at VegasInsider analyzed cheeseburgers from 14 major chains using a composite index - called the Relative Badness Score - which weights calories, fat, cholesterol, and sugar based on their health impact and concentration per gram.
This index doesn't just tell you which burgers are big - it tells you which are nutritionally the worst per bite.
Ranking at number one, no burger even comes close to the cheeseburger from Five Guys when it comes to nutritional excess. With a Relative Badness Score of 84.0, it tops the chart thanks to extremely high scores in calories, fat, and cholesterol.
Fat alone accounts for nearly half its total score, followed by a staggering 165 mg of cholesterol. Even when adjusted for portion size, Five Guys remains the densest, least health-friendly option.
Wendy's comes in second with a Relative Badness Score of 78.3, and Sonic isn't far behind at 69.7.
What's driving these high rankings isn't just fat or calories—it's sugar.
Both burgers contain 35 grams of sugar, which is more than in many desserts. Sugar alone contributes nearly 20% of their total 'badness.'
🍔 Nutrition Report: Unhealthiest Cheeseburger Rankings
| Restaurant | Calories Score | Fat Score | Cholesterol Score | Sugars Score | / Weight Score | Relative Badness |
| Five Guys | 28.0 | 41.3 | 13.8 | 1.8 | 1.01 | 84.0 |
| Wendy's | 19.7 | 27.8 | 6.7 | 7.0 | 0.78 | 78.3 |
| Sonic | 20.0 | 21.0 | 7.1 | 7.0 | 0.79 | 69.7 |
| Carl's Jr | 22.3 | 28.5 | 6.3 | 2.4 | 0.89 | 66.8 |
| Whataburger | 12.0 | 18.8 | 7.9 | 5.0 | 0.67 | 65.2 |
| McDonalds | 10.0 | 9.8 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 0.39 | 62.3 |
| Hardee's | 18.0 | 18.0 | 6.3 | 2.4 | 0.75 | 59.5 |
| Burger King | 9.5 | 9.8 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 0.40 | 59.3 |
| Jack In The Box | 17.4 | 22.5 | 6.7 | 1.6 | 0.83 | 58.0 |
| Shake Shack | 17.4 | 18.0 | 7.9 | 1.0 | 0.78 | 56.8 |
| Culver's | 17.4 | 17.3 | 6.3 | 1.4 | 0.80 | 52.9 |
| Freddy's | 15.0 | 18.0 | 7.1 | 0.8 | 0.78 | 52.2 |
| In-N-Out | 14.3 | 15.8 | 4.6 | 1.6 | 0.76 | 47.7 |
| Checkers | 17.4 | 13.5 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 0.77 | 46.5 |
Carl's Jr. lands in fourth spot with a score of 66.8. Its high calorie and fat scores drive much of its position, but its low sugar content helps keep it from climbing higher. Still, it ranks above many other well-known names.
McDonald's, known for its smaller, simpler cheeseburger, scores deceptively high at 62.3. While its raw calorie and fat content are lower than most, its badness per gram is exceptionally high, owing to its tiny 116g size, which means it still ranks among the top 5.
Hardee's (59.5), Burger King (59.3), Jack in the Box (58.0), Shake Shack (56.8), and Culver's (52.9) all sit within the top 10. Each has moderate calorie and fat levels, but none can claim to be a healthy option.
Shake Shack, in particular, scores high in cholesterol relative to its size, while Jack in the Box has a heavier fat profile.
Whataburger's score of 65.2 puts it ahead of McDonald's in relative harm despite having fewer calories. A closer look shows it contains 25 grams of sugar, which is high for its size and helps explain its worse-than-expected placement.
At the bottom of the list are In-N-Out Burger (47.7), Freddy's (52.2), and Checkers (46.5).
These options are relatively lower in all harmful categories, particularly sugar and cholesterol, and have more modest fat profiles.
In-N-Out, in particular, manages to balance flavor with a leaner nutritional impact, making it one of the better choices for those who don't want to abandon fast food entirely.
Our Methodology
Each nutrient was assigned a weight based on its detrimental impact on health, with fat and calories carrying the most weight, followed by cholesterol and sugar.
These nutrition values are sourced from either the chains' official websites or Calorie King.
The total score is then adjusted for the burger's weight to produce a Relative Badness Score, allowing for fair comparisons across different portion sizes.
All data is correct as of June 2025.