This manuscript highlights the importance of evaluating disparities in cervical cancer mortality by both race and nativity through analyzing a large racially and ethnically diverse cohort of women in Florida (N=14,932). I believe this manuscript highlights an important finding; particularly, that despite Caribbean-born Black women being diagnosed with advanced-stage disease, they had better overall survival compared to both US-born Black and White women with advanced-stage disease. Further, the authors provide a robust discussion of the healthy immigrant effect and the importance of evaluating mortality disparities by both race and nativity.

I have a few comments regarding the analysis:

1) Missing clinical and demographic characteristics of the study cohort were excluded from the analysis. It would be helpful to know if the proportion of variables that are missing or unknown are similar or variable by racial/ethnic group.
2) There is no mention of which covariates were adjusted for in the multivariable cox regression analysis of overall survival. Please include this in the Methods section.
3) A limitation of this analysis is that results were not stratified by country of birth. Are there any noteworthy differences?
4) Why was just overall survival and not cervical-cancer specific survival included in the analysis? Is there any data on cause of death?
5) I noticed many typos within the manuscript, as noted below. Please be sure to go back through the manuscript text closely for further errors.

Line 98: Typo, should be 12,569 not 12,596 women born in the United States
Line 124: Typo, should be 49.3 months instead of 49 months
Line 127: Typo, should be 13.7-24.7 instead of 13.7-27.7
Line 128: Typo, should be 10.2 (8.7-11.4) instead of 111 (92.9-129); The result listed is for localized stage OS survival for USB Black women when they are discussing distant stage OS survival for USB Black women
Line 248-249: “large statewide dataset of the representative of Florida”

The authors adequately addressed my comments regarding the manuscript. There are a few minor grammatical errors (for example: lines 208 and 259); otherwise, the manuscript is well written and I have no further comments.