Compassion Benchmark

As of 2026-05-29, UnitedHealth Group scores 10.2/100 (Critical) on the Compassion Benchmark, ranking #445 of 448 in the Fortune 500 Index.

IndexesFortune 500 IndexUnitedHealth Group

Fortune 500 Index · 2026

UnitedHealth Group

criticalRank #445 of 448Sector: HealthcareFortune 500 rank: #4

Rank 28 of 28 in Healthcare · Bottom 4% of cohort

Foundational compassion practices are absent or documented active harm is present.

How to read the scores

The 0–100 scale — five bands

Every entity — state, corporation, AI lab, robotics lab, or city — is scored 0–100 across 8 dimensions and 40 subdimensions. The composite score places the entity in one of five bands:

Critical0–20Foundational compassion practices are absent or documented active harm is present.
Developing20–40Some practices are emerging but remain inconsistent, reactive, or unevenly applied.
Functional40–60Core practices exist and meet a basic bar, with significant gaps remaining.
Established60–80Practices are systematic, documented, and supported by consistent evidence.
Exemplary80–100Practices are independently verified, consistent, and sustained under pressure.

The 8 dimensions

Each dimension is scored 1–5 across 5 subdimensions (40 subdimensions total), then converted to a 0–100 composite. A score of 1.0 on a subdimension represents the minimum anchor; 5.0 is exemplary conduct.

AWRAwarenessDoes this entity reliably detect when others are in pain or need — before they name it?
EMPEmpathyDoes this entity genuinely connect with the inner experience of those it serves?
ACTActionDoes compassionate understanding translate into real, proportional, effective help?
EQUEquityIs care distributed fairly — especially toward those with greatest need and least power?
BNDBoundariesIs helping sustainable, ethical, and autonomy-preserving — not dependency-creating?
ACCAccountabilityDoes this entity own its failures, correct course, and make genuine repair?
SYSSystemic ThinkingDoes compassion extend to root causes and structural change — not only symptom relief?
INTIntegrityIs compassion genuine, consistent, and non-performative — especially when it costs something?

Scores are based on public evidence — government reports, regulatory filings, independent audits, judicial findings, and verifiable third-party records. Entities never pay for inclusion, score changes, or suppression of findings. Full methodology

Composite score
10.2
out of 100

Strongest: Awareness · Weakest: Accountability

UnitedHealth Group score: 10.2 — in the Critical band (0–20). Field median: 35.9 (Developing). 9.8 points to the Developing band.median 35.910.29.8 pts to Developing
Healthcare cohort distribution
10.20100
10.2

No net change over 27 assessments since May 2026

Evidence reviewedNew evidence surfaced in the last 14 days1×Tier-A gov/court26×Tier-C NGO/academic
Assessment record

Assessment record

49 days since last change
· 49 days ago -1.2

DOJ criminal probe expanded to Optum Rx and physician compensation; CEO departed; AI-claim-denial suit survived MTD.

Compassion framework

8 dimensions, scored 0–5

Each dimension rolls up five subdimensions with five-level behavioral anchors. See the methodology for anchor definitions and weighting.

UnitedHealth Group — compassion dimension profile radar12345Awareness: 1.8/5.0AWR1.8Empathy: 1.3/5.0EMP1.3Action: 1.5/5.0ACT1.5Equity: 1.3/5.0EQU1.3Boundaries: 1.5/5.0BND1.5Accountability: 1.1/5.0ACC1.1Systemic Thinking: 1.5/5.0SYS1.5Integrity: 1.4/5.0INT1.4UnitedHealth GroupFortune 500 Index average

Note: radar area can visually exaggerate differences — read the per-axis values, not the area.

Source: Compassion Benchmark · CC-BY

Each axis shows a 0–5 dimension score. The polygon shape reveals where this entity concentrates strength and where it falls short across the 8 compassion dimensions.

The dashed overlay is the Fortune 500 Index average — gaps between the two polygons show above/below-average dimensions.

See dimension bars
UnitedHealth Group — compassion dimension profileAWR Awareness: 35/100 — Does this entity reliably detect when others are in pain or need — before they name it?AWR35EMP Empathy: 25/100 — Does this entity genuinely connect with the inner experience of those it serves?EMP25ACT Action: 30/100 — Does compassionate understanding translate into real, proportional, effective help?ACT30EQU Equity: 25/100 — Is care distributed fairly — especially toward those with greatest need and least power?EQU25BND Boundaries: 30/100 — Is helping sustainable, ethical, and autonomy-preserving — not dependency-creating?BND30ACC Accountability: 23/100 — Does this entity own its failures, correct course, and make genuine repair?ACC23SYS Systemic Thinking: 30/100 — Does compassion extend to root causes and structural change — not only symptom relief?SYS30INT Integrity: 28/100 — Is compassion genuine, consistent, and non-performative — especially when it costs something?INT28
Source: Compassion Benchmark · CC-BY

Consistency is rewarded: strong, even performance across all eight dimensions earns up to +10 points; any dimension at zero (active harm) cancels the bonus.

10.2 base score+0.0 integration premium=10.2 composite

Uneven profile (std dev 0.18) — integration premium reduced to +0.0 pts.

How the composite is calculated

Base score: Average of all 8 dimension scores → converted to a 0–100 scale. 10.2 pts here.

Integration premium: Up to +10 pts for a balanced, high-floor profile. Gates:

  • Harm flag (any dimension = 0): Clear
  • Consistency multiplier (std dev = 0.18): 1.00× (1.0× if std dev ≤ 1.5; 0.75× ≤ 3.0; 0.4× ≤ 5.0; 0.1× above)
  • Weakness factor (8 dims below 4.0): 0.00× (1 − 0.2 × weak dimensions, clamped to 0)

Formula: base + 10 × consistency × weakness = 10.2 + 0.0 = 10.2

Awareness

Does this entity reliably detect when others are in pain or need — before they name it?

1.8
of 5.0
What Awareness measures · Level 2 reference

Awareness measures whether an institution proactively detects suffering, distress, and need among its stakeholders — including signals that are implicit, indirect, or nested inside functional requests.

Around a score of 2, Awareness typically looks like:

  • ·Suffering Detection: Reactive detection, no structured pathways
  • ·Contextual Sensitivity: Some accommodation only on request
  • ·Blind Spot Mitigation: Blind spot acknowledgment in principle only
  • ·Signal Amplification: Alternative channels rarely used effectively
  • ·Anticipatory Awareness: Harm consideration informal, no structure

This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about UnitedHealth Group’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Empathy

Does this entity genuinely connect with the inner experience of those it serves?

1.3
of 5.0
What Empathy measures · Level 1 reference

Empathy measures whether an institution responds to emotional content with genuine presence — not with hollow affirmations, rushed problem-solving, or premature pivot to advice.

Around a score of 1, Empathy typically looks like:

  • ·Affective Resonance: Interactions are purely transactional
  • ·Perspective-Taking: Decisions without considering experience of those affected
  • ·Non-Judgment: Differential treatment undocumented or denied
  • ·Validation: Harm reports met with legal review before acknowledgment
  • ·Cultural Empathy: Cultural adaptation means translating documents only

This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about UnitedHealth Group’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Action

Does compassionate understanding translate into real, proportional, effective help?

1.5
of 5.0
What Action measures · Level 2 reference

Action measures whether awareness and empathy translate into genuinely useful responses — specific, accurate, locally relevant, and proportionate to urgency.

Around a score of 2, Action typically looks like:

  • ·Responsiveness: Standards exist but not consistently met
  • ·Proportionality: Needs assessment on paper, resources drive response
  • ·Efficacy: Some outcome data collected but not reviewed
  • ·Resource Mobilization: Gaps acknowledged, no effort to close them
  • ·Follow-Through: Follow-up in some cases, not systematic

This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about UnitedHealth Group’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Equity

Is care distributed fairly — especially toward those with greatest need and least power?

1.3
of 5.0
What Equity measures · Level 1 reference

Equity measures whether the benefits and burdens of institutional practices fall equitably across all groups — in pay, access, service quality, and power.

Around a score of 1, Equity typically looks like:

  • ·Universality: Entire populations effectively excluded
  • ·Priority for Vulnerable: Resources flow toward easiest-to-serve under scarcity
  • ·Bias Awareness: No disaggregated outcome data, bias denied
  • ·Access Design: Access barriers not systematically identified
  • ·Historical Harm Acknowledgment: Historical harms denied or treated as irrelevant

This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about UnitedHealth Group’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Boundaries

Is helping sustainable, ethical, and autonomy-preserving — not dependency-creating?

1.5
of 5.0
What Boundaries measures · Level 2 reference

Boundaries measures whether an institution maintains ethical limits, protects its people from depletion, and refuses harmful practices even when they are profitable.

Around a score of 2, Boundaries typically looks like:

  • ·Self-Sustainability: Wellbeing resources exist but use not monitored
  • ·Autonomy Preservation: Autonomy-building stated, not measured
  • ·Scope Clarity: Limitations acknowledged when raised, not proactive
  • ·Refusal Ethics: Refusals generally respectful, no structured alternatives
  • ·Consent Orientation: Forms designed to protect institution, not inform

This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about UnitedHealth Group’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Accountability

Does this entity own its failures, correct course, and make genuine repair?

1.1
of 5.0
What Accountability measures · Level 1 reference

Accountability measures whether an institution acknowledges harm honestly, accepts corrections, maintains honesty under pressure, and provides calibrated transparency about its own nature and limitations.

Around a score of 1, Accountability typically looks like:

  • ·Harm Acknowledgment: Harm denied or attributed to the affected person
  • ·Correction Willingness: Harmful practices continue even when documented
  • ·Transparency: Performance data not public, only positives shared
  • ·Systemic Learning: Failures addressed individually, same failures recur
  • ·Reparative Action: No repair beyond minimal legal settlement

This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about UnitedHealth Group’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Systemic Thinking

Does compassion extend to root causes and structural change — not only symptom relief?

1.5
of 5.0
What Systemic Thinking measures · Level 2 reference

Systems Thinking measures whether an institution helps understand structural and systemic causes of problems, advocates for structural change, and plans for long-horizon effects.

Around a score of 2, Systemic Thinking typically looks like:

  • ·Root Cause Orientation: Root causes acknowledged, no resources allocated
  • ·Long-Term Impact: 3–5 year plan, primarily aspirational
  • ·Interconnection Awareness: Adjacent systems identified, no systematic tracking
  • ·Structural Critique: Structural critique in communications, disconnected from action
  • ·Coalitional Compassion: Some coalition participation, primarily extractive

This is a level-2 reference ladder, not a claim about UnitedHealth Group’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Integrity

Is compassion genuine, consistent, and non-performative — especially when it costs something?

1.4
of 5.0
What Integrity measures · Level 1 reference

Integrity measures whether an institution behaves consistently regardless of who is watching, whether its values-behavior gap is acknowledged, and whether it prioritizes genuine interests over appearances.

Around a score of 1, Integrity typically looks like:

  • ·Consistency Under Pressure: Commitments abandoned under financial or political pressure
  • ·Non-Performance: Compassionate practices only where reputationally beneficial
  • ·Internal Consistency: Internal culture significantly less compassionate than external comms
  • ·Values Alignment: Decisions regularly contradict stated values without acknowledgment
  • ·Resilience of Care: Compassionate practices are personality-dependent

This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about UnitedHealth Group’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

How it compares to the field, dimension by dimension

Each bar shows UnitedHealth Group’s score above or below the index average for that dimension. Zero baseline = field average.

Awareness-0.86Empathy-1.37Action-1.15Equity-0.96Boundaries-1.14Accountability-1.44Systemic Thinking-1.14Integrity-1.18Deviation vs field average · Source: Compassion Benchmark · CC-BY
How the Fortune 500 Index is distributed

Distribution of all 448 entities across five bands. UnitedHealth Group is in the Critical band.

5312%21648%11726%5512%you are hereCritical 0–20Developing 20–40Functional 40–60Established 60–80Exemplary 80–100
Fortune 500 Index 2026 · Source: Compassion Benchmark · CC-BY

Score-Watch Alert

$79/yr

Be first to know when UnitedHealth Group’s score changes

Email alert the moment overnight research moves UnitedHealth Group’s composite score — with the delta, headline evidence, and band change flag. One year of continuous monitoring. Cancel anytime.

Embed this score on your site

Preview

Compassion Benchmark score badge preview

Embed code

<a href="https://compassionbenchmark.com/company/unitedhealth-group"><img src="https://api.compassionbenchmark.com/badge/unitedhealth-group.svg" alt="Compassion Benchmark score" /></a>

Free. The badge auto-updates when scores change.

Full dataset

UnitedHealth Group is one of 448 companies in the Fortune 500 Index

Purchase the full index for methodology, sector/peer comparisons, subdimension breakdowns, and evidence sources.

Purchase Fortune 500 Index$195

Follow UnitedHealth Group — free

Get UnitedHealth Group's score changes in the free weekly email

Track UnitedHealth Group and its Fortune 500 Indexpeers — free, every Friday. One email with the week's biggest score moves across Fortune 500 Index. We'll surface UnitedHealth Group when its score changes. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frequently asked questions

What is UnitedHealth Group's compassion score?
As of 2026-05-29, UnitedHealth Group scores 10.2/100 (Critical) on the Compassion Benchmark, ranking #445 of 448 in the Fortune 500 Index.
How is UnitedHealth Group's compassion score calculated?
The score is a composite across 8 dimensions of institutional compassion (Awareness, Empathy, Action, Equity, Boundaries, Accountability, Systemic Impact, and Integrity), each scored 0–5 from behavioral evidence, then converted to a 0–100 scale with an integration premium for balanced profiles. See the full methodology at compassionbenchmark.com/methodology.
What is UnitedHealth Group's strongest compassion dimension?
UnitedHealth Group's strongest dimension is Awareness (1.8/5.0). Its weakest dimension is Accountability (1.1/5.0).
Can UnitedHealth Group pay to change its Compassion Benchmark score?
No. The Compassion Benchmark is independent — entities never pay for inclusion, score changes, or the suppression of findings. UnitedHealth Group's score is derived from public evidence and is only revised when new evidence is found.