Global CityIntelligence

Ranking

Overall City Intelligence Ranking

A balanced ranking of cities across affordability, air quality, clean-energy readiness, and resilience. Overall City Intelligence Ranking compares 4444 indexed cities.

Last updated
2026-05-16
Data year
2025
Cities ranked
4444
Ranking type
Overall Intelligence

Visual summary

Lightweight visual summary of the top entries in this ranking. The full table below stays the source of truth and links into every city profile.

Visual summary of Overall City Intelligence Ranking

Visual summary

Overall Intelligence

Directional ranking context based on the platform's structured indicators. Not an official government ranking. The ranking table below is the source of truth.

  1. #191/100
  2. #290/100
  3. #390/100
  4. #490/100
  5. #589/100
  6. #689/100
  7. #789/100
  8. #888/100
  9. #988/100
  10. #1088/100

Visual summary shows the top 10 of 4444 cities. See the full ranking table below for every entry.

Ranking table

Ranking rows link directly to city profile pages, keeping comparisons useful for users and crawlable for search engines.

Overall City Intelligence Ranking table
RankCityScoreWhy it ranks here
#1CopenhagenDenmark91/100Overall composite 91/100; affordability 66, air 88, energy 94.
#2SingaporeSingapore90/100Overall composite 90/100; affordability 60, air 80, energy 85.
#3ZurichSwitzerland90/100Overall composite 90/100; affordability 52, air 88, energy 92.
#4StockholmSweden90/100Overall composite 90/100; affordability 60, air 86, energy 92.
#5TokyoJapan89/100Overall composite 89/100; affordability 68, air 78, energy 84.
#6ViennaAustria89/100Overall composite 89/100; affordability 72, air 84, energy 87.
#7OsloNorway89/100Overall composite 89/100; affordability 56, air 87, energy 95.
#8AmsterdamNetherlands88/100Overall composite 88/100; affordability 60, air 85, energy 89.
#9HelsinkiFinland88/100Overall composite 88/100; affordability 63, air 88, energy 88.
#10MunichGermany88/100Overall composite 88/100; affordability 58, air 80, energy 84.
#11GenevaSwitzerland87/100Overall composite 87/100; affordability 60, air 84, energy 82.
#12ParisFrance86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 55, air 76, energy 86.
#13SeoulSouth Korea86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 60, air 70, energy 82.
#14MelbourneAustralia86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 60, air 84, energy 78.
#15KyotoJapan86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 72, air 82, energy 78.
#16BaselSwitzerland86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 62, air 84, energy 82.
#17KumamotoJapan86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 54, air 72, energy 78.
#18SakaiJapan86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 54, air 73, energy 78.
#19OkazakiJapan86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 54, air 63, energy 81.
#20AmagasakiJapan86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 54, air 73, energy 80.
#21KōriyamaJapan86/100Overall composite 86/100; affordability 54, air 68, energy 86.
#22LondonUnited Kingdom85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 52, air 75, energy 84.
#23SydneyAustralia85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 50, air 82, energy 80.
#24HamburgGermany85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 64, air 80, energy 82.
#25EdinburghUnited Kingdom85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 62, air 82, energy 80.
#26ToyamaJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 67, energy 86.
#27Ōita-shiJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 66, energy 86.
#28Kōchi-shiJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 66, energy 84.
#29YamagataJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 67, energy 85.
#30FunabashiJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 67, energy 83.
#31TakasakiJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 63, energy 85.
#32IwataJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 71, energy 78.
#33MarugameJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 64, energy 83.
#34IchinomiyaJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 64, energy 85.
#35KaratsuJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 71, energy 81.
#36MishimaJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 71, energy 83.
#37MuroranJapan85/100Overall composite 85/100; affordability 55, air 73, energy 83.
#38New YorkUnited States84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 49, air 72, energy 82.
#39BerlinGermany84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 70, air 80, energy 88.
#40Hong KongHong Kong84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 50, air 70, energy 78.
#41San FranciscoUnited States84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 50, air 78, energy 86.
#42AucklandNew Zealand84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 86, energy 86.
#43VancouverCanada84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 86, energy 90.
#44SeattleUnited States84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 60, air 84, energy 90.
#45TaipeiTaiwan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 70, air 76, energy 78.
#46BrisbaneAustralia84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 64, air 84, energy 78.
#47OsakaJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 70, air 78, energy 78.
#48WellingtonNew Zealand84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 64, air 88, energy 88.
#49UtrechtNetherlands84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 70, air 80, energy 80.
#50Gjøvik MunicipalityNorway84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 38, air 79, energy 84.
#51EgersundNorway84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 38, air 80, energy 85.
#52SuwonSouth Korea84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 52, air 59, energy 83.
#53HiroshimaJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 72, energy 79.
#54ChangwonSouth Korea84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 52, air 61, energy 79.
#55SendaiJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 73, energy 78.
#56AnsanSouth Korea84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 52, air 58, energy 84.
#57GangneungSouth Korea84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 52, air 58, energy 79.
#58PyeongtaekSouth Korea84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 52, air 65, energy 78.
#59GumiSouth Korea84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 52, air 64, energy 78.
#60TakamatsuJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 71, energy 83.
#61GeojeSouth Korea84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 52, air 65, energy 81.
#62ToyohashiJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 64, energy 83.
#63SagamiharaJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 67, energy 78.
#64OdawaraJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 72, energy 79.
#65NagaokaJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 67, energy 82.
#66HikoneJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 66, energy 78.
#67KasugaiJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 69, energy 79.
#68KoshigayaJapan84/100Overall composite 84/100; affordability 56, air 66, energy 85.
#69TorontoCanada83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 55, air 80, energy 82.
#70MadridSpain83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 72, air 78, energy 80.
#71SolothurnSwitzerland83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 36, air 85, energy 80.
#72DavosSwitzerland83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 36, air 80, energy 81.
#73KirunaSweden83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 42, air 87, energy 81.
#74KotkaFinland83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 43, air 80, energy 79.
#75ForssaFinland83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 43, air 82, energy 84.
#76Mo i RanaNorway83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 39, air 80, energy 85.
#77YlöjärviFinland83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 43, air 85, energy 79.
#78AltaNorway83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 39, air 82, energy 84.
#79RaisioFinland83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 43, air 88, energy 83.
#80KungälvSweden83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 42, air 79, energy 80.
#81JämsäFinland83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 43, air 83, energy 85.
#82DrøbakNorway83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 39, air 83, energy 82.
#83PorsgrunnNorway83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 39, air 84, energy 86.
#84TønderDenmark83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 42, air 85, energy 86.
#85VordingborgDenmark83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 42, air 86, energy 81.
#86Eidsvoll MunicipalityNorway83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 39, air 80, energy 86.
#87Karmøy MunicipalityNorway83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 39, air 84, energy 86.
#88ArvikaSweden83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 42, air 82, energy 82.
#89JejuSouth Korea83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 53, air 66, energy 85.
#90SeongnamSouth Korea83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 53, air 63, energy 79.
#91KanazawaJapan83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 57, air 65, energy 85.
#92HwaseongSouth Korea83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 53, air 59, energy 84.
#93KitakyūshūJapan83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 57, air 72, energy 81.
#94NamyangjuSouth Korea83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 53, air 64, energy 79.
#95AkitaJapan83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 57, air 67, energy 81.
#96GimpoSouth Korea83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 53, air 62, energy 84.
#97TottoriJapan83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 57, air 70, energy 86.
#98ObihiroJapan83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 57, air 68, energy 80.
#99ShimonosekiJapan83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 57, air 72, energy 84.
#100SakuraJapan83/100Overall composite 83/100; affordability 57, air 72, energy 85.

Full ranked list (1014444)

Methodology and interpretation

The overall ranking combines module scores with extra weight for health, climate resilience, and practical daily-life access. Overall City Intelligence Ranking compares 4444 indexed cities, with Copenhagen at the top of the table at 91/100. Each row links directly to the relevant city profile so users can step from comparison into module-level context. Data year 2025; last updated 2026-05-16. Drawn from 4 institutional references.

Rankings are directional intelligence, not official government scores. Each entry links to a city profile where users can inspect module-level context, source blocks, and data tables. See the read the scoring methodology for the underlying scoring model.

Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation. Verified datasets are being integrated; official sources should be used for critical decisions.

Sources

4 institutional references inform this view, listed below with reliability notes. Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation; verified datasets are being integrated and official sources should be used for critical decisions.