Safety score
Personal safety, institutional trust, and resilience signals informed by international safety and crime data.
Safety in Mumbai76/100
Safety
Safety in Mumbai
Mumbai has solid overall safety with consistent neighborhood experience and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. Safety in Mumbai scores 76/100, placing it in the solid group of the indexed set.
- Last updated
- 2026-05-16
- Data year
- 2025
- Module score
- 76/100
Safety score
76/100
Solid score with consistent neighborhood experience.
Violent-crime context
Mid-low
Violent-crime context is comparatively low for a major metro.
Watch item
Property and traffic
Property crime and traffic safety are the main practical concerns.
Mumbai safety data table
This HTML table mirrors the visible score cards so important comparison data is never trapped in a browser-only chart.
| Metric | Value | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Safety score | 76/100 | Stable institutional response reinforces the score. |
| Violent-crime context | Mid-low | Trend visibility is supported by public reporting. |
| Watch item | Property and traffic | Common-sense precautions remain useful. |
Safety city comparison
A crawlable comparison across a selection of same-country and top-scoring cities. The complete set is reachable via the rankings, the cities index, and each city profile.
| City | Score | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mumbai (this page) | 76/100 | Mumbai has solid overall safety with consistent neighborhood experience and property-related opportunistic risks the main day-to-day concern. |
| Bangalore | 78/100 | Bangalore scores well on safety, with steady public-safety perception and stable institutional response. |
| Delhi | 70/100 | Delhi scores moderately on safety, with district-level variation and active institutional response. |
| Chennai | 62/100 | Chennai's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Hyderabad | 62/100 | Hyderabad's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Pune | 62/100 | Pune's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Jaipur | 59/100 | Jaipur's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Singapore | 95/100 | Singapore is among the safest cities globally, with very low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Tokyo | 93/100 | Tokyo scores at the very top globally on safety, with very low violent-crime context, strong institutions, and high resident perception of safety. |
| Kyoto | 93/100 | Kyoto scores very high on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Copenhagen | 92/100 | Copenhagen scores high on safety due to strong public trust, low violent-crime context, and reliable institutional response. |
| Osaka | 92/100 | Osaka scores high on safety, with strong institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Zurich | 91/100 | Zurich is among the safest large European cities, with very low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Seoul | 90/100 | Seoul is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context, strong institutional response, and consistent public-space confidence. |
| Taipei | 90/100 | Taipei is among the safer large global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Doha | 90/100 | Doha is among the safer global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Abu Dhabi | 90/100 | Abu Dhabi is among the safer global cities, with very low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Helsinki | 90/100 | Helsinki scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and stable public-safety perception. |
| Wellington | 90/100 | Wellington scores high on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Munich | 89/100 | Munich scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and stable public-safety perception. |
| Amsterdam | 88/100 | Amsterdam scores high on safety, with low violent-crime context and strong everyday public-space confidence. |
| Vienna | 88/100 | Vienna is among the safer large European capitals, with low violent-crime context and consistent everyday public-space confidence. |
| Hong Kong | 88/100 | Hong Kong scores high on safety with low violent-crime context and reliable institutional response across the metro. |
| Dubai | 88/100 | Dubai scores high on safety, with very low violent-crime context and reliable institutional response across the metro. |
| Prague | 88/100 | Prague is among the safer European capitals, with low violent-crime context and consistent neighborhood experience. |
| Oslo | 88/100 | Oslo scores well on safety, with strong institutional response and steady public-safety planning. |
| Edinburgh | 88/100 | Edinburgh scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Perth | 88/100 | Perth scores well on safety, with stable institutional response and steady public-safety perception. |
| Sydney | 87/100 | Sydney is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
| Geneva | 87/100 | Geneva's safety profile is a directional indicator; verified country-level emergency profiles attach via the country hub where available. |
| Auckland | 86/100 | Auckland is among the safer large global cities, with low violent-crime context and strong institutional response. |
Interpretation
Safety scoring weighs violent-crime context, neighborhood variation, and institutional response. Mumbai's resident experience is broadly stable. Across the indexed cities the safety average is 64/100, so Mumbai is 12 points above the median. Data year 2025; last updated 2026-05-16. Drawn from 2 institutional references.
Read this module with the main open the mumbai city profile and the read the scoring methodology page so single-topic pages do not hide tradeoffs across dimensions.
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
2 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.
- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: UNODC Data Portal
Used as a directional benchmark for relative city safety framing.
- UN-Habitat: World Cities Report 2024
Used as a policy and methodology reference for urban exposure and resilience signals.
Continue exploring
These links connect module pages back to city, ranking, and sibling topic paths with crawlable href values.
Mumbai city profile
Return to the complete Mumbai profile with all module scores and source context.
Cost of Living in Mumbai
Affordability, essential costs, and day-to-day financial pressure for residents.
Air Quality in Mumbai
Health-oriented air-quality conditions with context from WHO, EEA, and EPA benchmarks.
Energy in Mumbai
Clean-energy readiness, grid resilience, and solar or efficiency opportunity signals.
Internet Speed in Mumbai
Broadband and mobile connectivity quality, latency, and digital-readiness signals for residents and remote workers.
Climate Risk in Mumbai
Climate exposure, hazard frequency, and adaptation context for floods, heat, storms, and wildfires.
Overall Intelligence
A balanced ranking of cities across affordability, air quality, clean-energy readiness, and resilience.
Quality of Life
Cities that combine strong services, mobility, safety, clean air, and resilience into a healthy day-to-day profile.