A strong credit score can mean lower interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and credit cards, making it an important measure of Americans’ financial health.

But how does your state compare with the rest of the country?

This map shows average credit scores across all 50 states using Experian’s September 2025 data. Scores are based on FICO Score 8, which ranges from 300 to 850.

America’s North–South Credit Divide

The Upper Midwest and New England dominate the top of the rankings, with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, and New Hampshire all averaging 735 or higher.

At the other end, several Southern states fall below 700, including Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The pattern highlights a clear geographic divide in average credit scores across the country.

The contrast extends to America’s largest state economies. Texas averages 692, well below California’s 721, while Florida’s 704 also falls short of the national average of 713.

The following table ranks U.S. states by their average credit scores as of September 2025.

State	Average FICO score (2025)
Minnesota	741
Vermont	737
Wisconsin	737
New Hampshire	735
Washington	734
Massachusetts	731
Maine	731
South Dakota	731
Hawaii	730
Montana	730
North Dakota	730
Oregon	730
Colorado	729
Idaho	729
Iowa	728
Nebraska	728
Utah	728
Connecticut	724
New Jersey	722
Wyoming	722
California	721
Virginia	721
Alaska	720
Illinois	720
Kansas	720
Pennsylvania	720
New York	719
Rhode Island	719
Michigan	717
Maryland	714
Delaware	713
Ohio	713
Missouri	712
DC	711
Indiana	710
Arizona	709
North Carolina	707
Florida	704
Kentucky	704
Tennessee	703
New Mexico	701
Nevada	699
South Carolina	699
West Virginia	699
Arkansas	693
Oklahoma	693
Georgia	692
Texas	692
Alabama	689
Louisiana	686
Mississippi	677
U.S. Average	713

Nationally, the average slipped from 715 in 2024 to 713 in 2025, marking a notable reversal after more than a decade of improving or stable scores.

Household budgets are also facing higher debt payments. Average monthly debt obligations reached $1,256 in 2025, up 2.6%, even as average total debt balances increased just 0.4%. Borrowers are paying more each month without taking on substantially larger balances.

Student Loan Delinquencies Hit Credit Records

One major change in 2025 was the return of negative reporting on federal student loans. After nearly five years of pandemic-era protections, missed payments began appearing on credit reports again, exposing struggling borrowers to sharp declines in their credit scores.

More than 2 million student loan borrowers who became newly delinquent in the first quarter experienced credit score drops exceeding 100 points. For borrowers who previously qualified for affordable financing, such declines could substantially narrow their options.

The highest rates of overdue student loans were concentrated in the South, mirroring the broader geographic pattern. The consequences extend beyond education debt, as damaged credit can make a future car loan or mortgage more expensive or harder to obtain.

How Better Credit Can Save Thousands

For homebuyers, the lowest mortgage rates generally go to borrowers with credit scores in the mid-to-high 700s or above. Stronger credit can provide a meaningful financial advantage when buying a home.

Even a one-percentage-point difference in mortgage rates can translate into substantial costs. On a $300,000, 30-year fixed mortgage, a 7% rate rather than 6% adds approximately $197 to the monthly principal and interest payment.

Over 30 years, that’s roughly $71,000 in additional interest, illustrating why stronger credit can have a lasting financial payoff.

Payment history has the biggest influence on FICO scores, typically accounting for 35% of the calculation. Amounts owed contribute another 30%, including how much available credit a borrower uses. Consistent on-time payments and manageable credit card balances can help build stronger credit profiles.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To see how another form of borrowing could affect credit scores, check out BNPL loans will now count toward Americans’ credit scores on Voronoi.

The United Kingdom dominates the top of the university rankings outside the United States, with Oxford, Cambridge, and Imperial College London taking the first three spots.

Meanwhile, universities in China and Singapore are strengthening their positions among the world’s elite, reflecting Asia’s growing presence in global higher education.

This visualization highlights the top 50 universities outside the U.S., while the accompanying table covers the top 100, using data from Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings 2027.

Which Universities Rank Highest Outside the U.S.?

The University of Oxford leads the ranking with an overall score of 97.9 out of 100, followed by Cambridge at 96.9 and Imperial College London at 95.2.

The table below shows the leading universities outside the U.S., along with their overall scores. Universities with identical scores share the same rank, and the next rank is skipped accordingly. As a result, the list includes 101 institutions, with three tied at No. 99.

Rank	University	Country / territory	Overall score
1	University of Oxford	United Kingdom	97.9
2	University of Cambridge	United Kingdom	96.9
3	Imperial College London	United Kingdom	95.2
4	Tsinghua University	China	93.9
5	ETH Zurich	Switzerland	93.6
6	Peking University	China	92.8
7	National University of Singapore	Singapore	91.1
8	UCL	United Kingdom	90.3
9	University of Toronto	Canada	89.1
10	Technical University of Munich	Germany	85.1
11	The University of Tokyo	Japan	84.3
12	Nanyang Technological University, Singapore	Singapore	84.0
13	University of Edinburgh	United Kingdom	83.5
14	University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	82.6
15	University of Melbourne	Australia	80.9
15	Zhejiang University	China	80.9
17	École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne	Switzerland	80.5
18	Fudan University	China	80.2
19	Shanghai Jiao Tong University	China	80.0
20	King’s College London	United Kingdom	79.3
21	LMU Munich	Germany	78.7
22	The Chinese University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	77.8
23	McGill University	Canada	77.7
24	University of British Columbia	Canada	77.6
25	KU Leuven	Belgium	77.5
25	Universität Heidelberg	Germany	77.5
27	London School of Economics and Political Science	United Kingdom	77.3
28	Delft University of Technology	Netherlands	76.5
29	The University of Sydney	Australia	76.3
29	University of Science and Technology of China	China	76.3
31	Karolinska Institute	Sweden	75.9
32	Seoul National University	South Korea	75.6
33	Paris Sciences et Lettres – PSL Research University Paris	France	75.5
34	The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	Hong Kong	75.4
35	Nanjing University	China	75.2
36	University of Manchester	United Kingdom	74.8
37	Monash University	Australia	74.7
38	Kyoto University	Japan	74.6
38	University of Amsterdam	Netherlands	74.6
40	Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)	South Korea	73.6
41	Wageningen University & Research	Netherlands	72.9
42	Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU)	South Korea	72.7
43	Leiden University	Netherlands	72.6
44	City University of Hong Kong	Hong Kong	72.3
45	The University of Queensland	Australia	71.2
46	Institut Polytechnique de Paris	France	71.1
46	UNSW Sydney	Australia	71.1
48	Australian National University	Australia	71.0
49	Université Paris-Saclay	France	70.9
50	The Hong Kong Polytechnic University	Hong Kong	70.7
51	Yonsei University (Seoul campus)	South Korea	70.6
52	University of Copenhagen	Denmark	70.2
53	University of Bristol	United Kingdom	70.1
54	University of Glasgow	United Kingdom	69.9
55	University of Groningen	Netherlands	69.1
56	University of Bonn	Germany	67.8
57	RWTH Aachen University	Germany	67.7
58	Humboldt University of Berlin	Germany	67.6
59	Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin	Germany	67.0
60	University of Vienna	Austria	66.9
61	Harbin Institute of Technology	China	66.8
62	Aarhus University	Denmark	66.6
62	University of Birmingham	United Kingdom	66.6
64	University of Tübingen	Germany	66.5
65	Lund University	Sweden	66.4
65	University of Sheffield	United Kingdom	66.4
67	KTH Royal Institute of Technology	Sweden	66.3
67	Tohoku University	Japan	66.3
69	Erasmus University Rotterdam	Netherlands	66.0
70	Technical University of Denmark	Denmark	65.9
71	University of Basel	Switzerland	65.6
71	University of Bologna	Italy	65.6
73	Free University of Berlin	Germany	65.5
73	University of Leeds	United Kingdom	65.5
73	University of Warwick	United Kingdom	65.5
76	Ghent University	Belgium	65.4
76	McMaster University	Canada	65.4
78	University of Alberta	Canada	65.3
78	University of Helsinki	Finland	65.3
78	University of Oslo	Norway	65.3
81	University of Bern	Switzerland	65.2
81	Wuhan University	China	65.2
83	Tongji University	China	64.9
84	Beijing Normal University	China	64.8
85	Hamad Bin Khalifa University	Qatar	64.5
85	National Taiwan University (NTU)	Taiwan	64.5
87	Korea University	South Korea	64.4
88	Queen Mary University of London	United Kingdom	64.2
88	University of Hamburg	Germany	64.2
88	University of Lausanne	Switzerland	64.2
91	Université de Montréal	Canada	63.9
92	Maastricht University	Netherlands	63.8
92	University of Göttingen	Germany	63.8
92	Uppsala University	Sweden	63.8
95	University of Southampton	United Kingdom	63.2
96	University of Freiburg	Germany	63.0
97	Adelaide University	Australia	62.9
97	University of São Paulo	Brazil	62.9
99	Karlsruhe Institute of Technology	Germany	62.7
99	Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH)	South Korea	62.7
99	University of Barcelona	Spain	62.7

China’s Tsinghua University ranks fourth with a score of 93.9, while Switzerland’s ETH Zurich rounds out the top five at 93.6. Canada’s University of Toronto ranks ninth, and Germany’s Technical University of Munich completes the top 10.

These positions are based on the global rankings after removing U.S. institutions, so they differ from the universities’ positions in the complete worldwide list.

Oxford Leads the Ranking for an 11th Straight Year

Oxford takes the top spot among universities outside the U.S., followed by Cambridge and Imperial College London.

The British university has also held the No. 1 position in Times Higher Education’s global rankings for 11 consecutive years, the longest streak in the ranking’s history. Its lead over MIT, which ranked as America’s best college, was just 0.1 points in 2027.

The UK’s strength extends beyond the top three. University College London ranks eighth on this list, giving the country four universities among the top 10 outside the United States.

China Leads Asia’s Top Universities

China’s Tsinghua University ranks fourth outside the U.S., ahead of Switzerland’s ETH Zurich in fifth. It is the highest-ranked Asian university on the list, followed by Peking University in sixth.

Tsinghua’s rise marks a milestone: for the first time, an Asian university has overtaken every institution in continental Europe in Times Higher Education’s global rankings.

China’s broader progress is also significant. The country now has 17 universities in the global top 200, up from 13 last year, with most of those institutions improving their positions.

Singapore Places Two Universities Among the Top 12

Singapore, a country of roughly six million people, has two universities among the 12 highest-ranked institutions outside of America.

The National University of Singapore ranks seventh, while Nanyang Technological University places 12th. Both institutions have strengthened their positions in the global rankings, benefiting from improvements in their academic reputations, according to Times Higher Education.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed this visualization, check out Ranked: America’s 20 Highest-Paying College Degrees on the Voronoi app.

Tourism is a major economic engine, generating trillions of dollars through hotels, restaurants, transportation, and related industries. But the countries with the biggest tourism economies aren’t necessarily those attracting the most international visitors.

This visualization ranks the 25 largest travel and tourism economies in 2025, using data from the World Travel & Tourism Council. The estimates include both domestic and international travel, alongside the wider economic activity supported through suppliers and workers’ spending.

America’s Tourism Economy Stands Apart

Travel and tourism contributed $2.63 trillion to the U.S. economy in 2025, roughly 50% more than its closest competitor, China ($1.75 trillion).

The approximately $880 billion gap between them was larger than the entire tourism economy of any other country. Germany ($566 billion) ranked a distant third and led Europe, ahead of tourist hotspots like France and Spain.

This table ranks countries by the total contribution of travel and tourism to their economies.

Rank	Country	Tourism GDP, 2025 (US$ billions)
1	U.S.	2,632.6
2	China	1,754.7
3	Germany	566.2
4	United Kingdom	380.2
5	Japan	343.1
6	France	311.8
7	Spain	291.0
8	Mexico	282.7
9	Italy	264.5
10	India	263.6
11	Australia	198.0
12	Saudi Arabia	178.1
13	Brazil	173.8
14	Türkiye	170.0
15	Netherlands	132.5
16	Canada	130.2
17	Russia	106.8
18	Philippines	89.8
19	Indonesia	73.7
20	South Korea	73.7
21	Thailand	72.6
22	Switzerland	70.2
23	United Arab Emirates	68.5
24	Portugal	67.2
25	Singapore	57.0

Germany’s position reflects the strength of its domestic market. Residents accounted for approximately 83% of recorded overnight stays in 2025, pushing accommodation demand to a new annual record despite a decline in foreign guest nights.

Japan, meanwhile, welcomed a record 42.7 million international visitors, up 15.8% from 2024. Seasonal attractions such as cherry blossoms and winter sports continued drawing travelers, while Osaka’s World Expo provided another major reason to visit.

Strong Domestic Demand in the U.S.

Americans traveling within their own country spent $1.54 trillion in 2025, nearly nine times the $176 billion spent by international visitors. That enormous home market helped sustain demand even as fewer travelers arrived from abroad.

International arrivals to the U.S. fell by 5.5% in 2025, while spending by foreign visitors declined 4.6%. Nearby Mexico moved in the opposite direction, attracting more international visitors and recording stronger growth in their spending.

Despite its enormous size, America’s tourism economy grew just 0.9% in 2025, compared with 4.1% globally. The contrast highlights a key distinction in the rankings: the U.S. remains the largest tourism market by a wide margin, but other economies are growing considerably faster.

China’s Recovery Gains Momentum

China’s tourism economy expanded by 9.9% in 2025, more than twice the global growth rate. International arrivals rose 15.5% to more than 68 million, with spending by overseas visitors surpassing pre-pandemic levels.

Easier entry is helping attract that demand. China has expanded visa-free access and extended permitted transit stays, while improvements to entry procedures and digital payments are making visits more convenient. By June 2026, its visa-free arrangements covered more than 50 countries, with eligible travelers able to stay for up to 30 days.

Investment in air connections and high-speed rail is also making destinations beyond the main international gateways easier to reach. Combined with new cultural attractions and theme parks, these connections are helping spread tourism spending across more of the country.

With a tourism economy already worth $1.75 trillion and growing much faster than America’s, China remains the clearest challenger to the U.S. lead, even though a substantial gap remains.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To explore tourism’s economic importance in the Middle East, check out How Dependent are the Gulf Arab States on Tourism? on Voronoi.

Where can residents enjoy a high quality of life without paying a premium?

This visualization, created by Valerii Emelianov, compares 99 cities across North and South America using Numbeo’s Quality of Life Index and cost-of-living data from August 2026.

Both axes show percentile rankings within the sample. The quality-of-life measure excludes price-linked components to avoid counting affordability twice.

Which Cities Offer the Best Value?

The chart’s upper-left quadrant highlights cities that combine above-median quality of life with below-median living costs. The following table provides the underlying city-level rankings and index scores.

Numbeo’s quality-of-life measures incorporate factors such as safety, healthcare, pollution, traffic, and climate. However, its crowdsourced data reflects contributors’ experiences rather than a representative survey of all residents.

City	Cost of Living Percentile	Livability Percentile	Cost of Living Index	Quality of Life Index
Cuenca	0.5	93.4	30.5	153.8
Curitiba	5.6	91.4	35.8	145.8
Brasilia	7.6	84.3	36.7	150.6
Florianopolis	10.6	83.3	37.7	150.0
Queretaro (Santiago de Querétaro)	19.7	96.5	49.8	156.4
Campinas	8.6	53.0	36.8	133.9
Nanaimo, BC	37.9	97.5	65.4	191.4
Victoria	55.1	99.5	69.8	190.5
Quebec City	25.8	90.4	60.0	191.0
Belo Horizonte	2.5	31.8	34.8	125.1
Vancouver	56.6	98.5	70.0	182.9
Porto Alegre	3.5	26.8	35.3	121.2
Ottawa	40.9	95.5	65.8	191.9
Mississauga	33.8	89.4	64.4	172.6
Halifax	41.9	92.4	66.2	176.1
Kelowna	34.9	77.3	64.6	173.4
Medellin	16.7	39.9	48.5	115.8
Quito	4.6	16.7	35.4	122.1
Calgary	49.0	86.4	67.6	180.2
Montreal	28.8	65.2	60.3	170.9
Edmonton	35.9	72.2	64.7	188.3
Tulsa, OK	45.5	82.3	67.0	186.7
Montevideo	23.7	50.0	58.2	139.6
Guadalajara	15.7	28.8	46.7	118.3
Omaha, NE	50.0	71.2	68.0	185.0
London	31.8	54.0	63.9	168.0
Oklahoma City, OK	59.1	78.3	70.4	186.3
Recife	1.5	6.6	32.6	88.6
Kansas City, MO	52.0	69.2	68.8	185.4
Cincinnati, OH	36.9	52.0	65.1	185.7
Charlotte, NC	64.1	81.3	72.4	186.6
Toronto	45.5	60.1	67.0	168.3
Jacksonville, FL	48.0	58.1	67.4	186.2
Columbus, OH	69.2	85.4	73.8	184.0
Boise, ID	58.1	66.2	70.2	186.2
Tampa, FL	63.1	70.2	72.0	186.2
Raleigh, NC	54.0	62.1	69.7	185.6
Panama City	17.7	19.7	48.6	117.9
Buffalo, NY	76.3	88.4	76.1	183.1
Buenos Aires	22.7	24.8	53.4	119.4
Madison, WI	66.2	73.2	73.1	183.7
Brampton	27.3	35.9	60.1	158.2
Santiago	14.1	10.6	43.7	111.2
Lima	6.6	0.5	36.5	90.2
San Antonio, TX	42.9	45.0	66.5	182.8
Monterrey	21.7	23.7	52.9	119.6
Tucson, AZ	39.9	40.9	65.7	186.2
Rio de Janeiro	9.6	1.5	37.1	81.6
Cleveland, OH	43.9	43.9	66.8	176.2
Bogota	14.1	8.6	43.7	104.0
Spokane, WA	70.7	74.2	74.1	186.4
Pittsburgh, PA	56.6	51.0	70.0	186.3
Colorado Springs, CO	72.2	75.3	74.4	185.2
Sao Paulo	11.6	4.6	41.3	99.0
Austin, TX	62.1	55.1	71.7	186.6
San Diego, CA	88.9	94.4	85.9	181.9
Orlando, FL	68.2	63.1	73.4	186.2
Albuquerque, NM	32.8	32.8	64.1	178.7
Reno, NV	80.8	80.3	77.2	183.2
Richmond, VA	65.2	59.1	72.8	185.1
Santo Domingo	12.6	2.5	41.8	88.9
Nashville, TN	73.7	67.2	75.2	181.8
Milwaukee, WI	51.0	37.9	68.1	172.4
Indianapolis, IN	61.1	42.9	71.0	185.4
Sacramento, CA	85.4	79.3	80.6	183.1
Salt Lake City, UT	47.0	33.8	67.2	175.5
San Jose	24.8	21.7	59.9	120.4
Fort Worth, TX	70.7	56.1	74.1	183.7
Winnipeg	29.8	18.7	61.1	150.2
Dallas, TX	79.3	61.1	77.0	180.7
Honolulu, HI	99.5	87.4	108.4	159.4
Hamilton	27.3	13.6	60.1	153.9
Caracas	18.7	3.5	49.7	77.7
Boston, MA	93.4	76.3	90.7	177.0
Houston, TX	38.9	22.7	65.6	172.7
Mexico City	20.7	5.6	51.5	96.5
Regina	30.8	14.7	63.7	151.3
Portland, OR	87.4	68.2	85.5	176.8
Minneapolis, MN	77.3	48.0	76.2	178.1
Saint Louis, MO	73.7	41.9	75.2	181.3
San Jose, CA	92.4	64.1	89.4	183.7
Seattle, WA	95.5	57.1	92.8	184.2
Oakland, CA	90.4	49.0	86.4	172.2
San Juan	60.1	20.7	70.9	140.0
Miami, FL	88.9	46.0	85.9	159.0
Anchorage, AK	94.4	47.0	90.8	173.0
Denver, CO	82.3	36.9	78.8	166.7
Baltimore, MD	75.3	25.8	75.6	172.8
Atlanta, GA	84.3	34.9	80.3	179.7
Las Vegas, NV	67.2	15.7	73.2	155.9
New Orleans, LA	83.3	30.8	79.0	163.4
Washington, DC	96.5	38.9	93.7	178.4
Detroit, MI	53.0	7.6	69.4	139.1
Philadelphia, PA	86.4	27.8	80.8	166.8
Phoenix, AZ	78.3	12.6	76.6	156.7
San Francisco, CA	97.5	29.8	96.3	171.5
Chicago, IL	80.8	11.6	77.2	157.4
New York, NY	98.5	17.7	100.0	136.2
Los Angeles, CA	91.4	9.6	87.6	134.4

Cuenca and Querétaro stand out for combining relatively low costs with high livability. Canadian cities including Nanaimo, Ottawa, and Halifax also perform strongly, while New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago fall into the high-cost, low-livability quadrant.

Among U.S. cities, San Diego is a notable exception, ranking in the 94th percentile for quality of life despite its 89th-percentile living costs.

How Do the U.S. and Canada Compare?

Canada’s strongest cities cluster near the top of the quality-of-life rankings, while U.S. cities show greater variation. The two countries have long maintained close economic ties, but their quality-of-life metrics differ in several areas.

According to Numbeo’s country comparison, the U.S. scores higher on purchasing power (166.3 versus 134.5), while Canada performs better on safety (54.5 versus 50.8) and healthcare (68.6 versus 66.8).

Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system and stronger statutory parental leave benefits can also reduce certain household financial risks, although housing affordability remains a challenge in major Canadian cities.

Does Higher Spending Mean Better Living?

Not necessarily. Los Angeles ranks in the 91st percentile for living costs but only the 10th percentile for quality of life. San Jose also ranks above the 90th percentile for costs without reaching the 70th percentile for livability.

One reason for this disconnect is that expensive cities often face challenges that higher incomes cannot fully offset. Long commutes, pollution, and safety concerns can affect everyday life, even in cities with strong job markets and high salaries.

Conversely, smaller cities with lower housing costs and less congestion may offer a more comfortable lifestyle at a lower price. However, affordability also depends on local wages and purchasing power, meaning lower living costs don’t automatically translate into better financial outcomes for residents.

Ultimately, the comparison shows why finding cities at the intersection of affordability and high quality of life requires looking beyond prices alone.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

Explore Mapped: Where People Think Quality of Life Is Best to see how cities across the Americas compare.

Asia sits at the center of global container shipping, with major ports connecting the region’s manufacturing hubs to markets around the world. The scale of traffic through these terminals offers a window into the geography of global trade.

This graphic ranks the world’s 30 busiest container ports using Lloyd’s List’s 2026 ranking, based on traffic handled in 2025.

Volumes are measured in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), a standard shipping measure. A 20-foot container counts as one TEU, while a 40-foot container counts as two. Totals include both loaded and empty containers.

China Dominates the Container Trade

Shanghai retained its position as the world’s busiest container port for the 16th consecutive year in 2025. It handled over 10 million more TEUs than second-place Singapore and more than five times the volume of Los Angeles, America’s busiest container port.

Chinese ports, including Hong Kong (13 million TEUs), accounted for approximately half the combined traffic at the 30 ports shown. More broadly, all eight of the world’s busiest container ports are in East or Southeast Asia.

The table below shows the world’s 30 busiest container ports by throughput in 2025.

Rank	Port	2025 throughput (TEUs)
1	Shanghai	55,062,500
2	Singapore	44,660,000
3	Ningbo-Zhoushan	43,872,000
4	Shenzhen	35,408,400
5	Qingdao	32,893,000
6	Guangzhou	28,050,900
7	Busan	24,881,000
8	Tianjin	24,032,900
9	Dubai	15,552,000
10	Port Klang	15,138,772
11	Port of Johor	15,110,050
12	Rotterdam	14,245,000
13	Antwerp-Bruges	13,630,000
14	Hong Kong	12,995,000
15	Xiamen	12,507,700
16	Tanger Med	11,106,164
17	Laem Chabang	10,542,417
18	Los Angeles	10,239,318
19	Suzhou	10,215,000
20	Beibu Gulf	10,063,000
21	Long Beach	9,881,595
22	Ho Chi Minh City	8,922,818
23	New York/New Jersey	8,897,500
24	Kaohsiung	8,885,854
25	Mundra	8,377,663
26	Hai Phong	8,323,043
27	Hamburg	8,323,017
28	Tanjung Priok	8,300,000
29	Colombo	8,291,178
30	Jawaharlal Nehru	7,944,257

Shanghai draws cargo from far beyond its city limits. Inland waterways and railways connect the port with industrial clusters along the Yangtze River, helping manufacturers across central and eastern China reach overseas markets.

Manufacturing is spreading across more Asian economies, while trade links between China and Southeast Asia continue to deepen. These connections help keep Chinese ports central to regional supply chains as companies diversify their production locations.

Singapore Connects the World’s Shipping Routes

Unlike China’s major ports, which serve vast domestic manufacturing regions, Singapore’s shipping industry is built largely around connecting international trade routes. Linked to more than 600 ports worldwide, it functions like a connecting airport for cargo, transferring containers between ships before they continue to their destinations. This process, known as transshipment, helps explain how a small city-state became the world’s second-busiest container port.

Deep-water berths and automated electric yard cranes help its newest terminals accommodate the world’s largest container vessels. These facilities allow shipping lines to transfer large volumes of cargo through a single stop on their routes.

Singapore is expanding that capacity through Tuas Port, which will consolidate its container operations in one location. When completed in the 2040s, the development is planned to handle 65 million TEUs annually, strengthening the city-state’s position in global shipping networks.

Southern California: America’s Pacific Gateway

Despite being America’s busiest container port, Los Angeles ranks behind major shipping hubs in Asia, Europe, and Africa. Together with neighboring Long Beach, it forms the San Pedro Bay port complex, which handled approximately a third of America’s containerized international seaborne trade in 2025.

Furniture, auto parts, and electronics were among Los Angeles’ leading imports. The port’s busiest trade routes connected it with East and Southeast Asia, illustrating how Asian manufacturing reaches American homes, stores, and businesses.

That reach extends well beyond California. The 20-mile Alameda Corridor connects both ports to the transcontinental rail network, providing an onward route for containers headed inland. Goods unloaded on the Pacific coast can continue their journey toward customers thousands of miles away.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

To explore the companies operating the ships that call at these ports, check out The World’s Largest Container Shipping Companies on Voronoi.

How Much Do You Need to Earn to Buy a Home in 2026?

A six-figure salary used to be a benchmark of financial success. In much of the U.S. housing market, it’s now closer to the starting point for buying a home, even with a substantial down payment.

This map shows the annual income needed to buy a median-priced existing home in 50 major U.S. metro areas in Q2 2026, using data from HSH.com. It assumes a 20% down payment and a 30-year fixed mortgage, with principal, interest, property taxes, and insurance taking up 28% of gross income.

California Metros Need the Highest Salaries

California dominates the expensive end of the ranking. San Jose leads at $492.4K a year, followed by San Francisco ($368.0K), San Diego ($256.7K), and Los Angeles ($215.1K).

Outside California, New York City ($213.8K), Boston ($212.6K), and Seattle ($200.8K) are the only metros requiring annual incomes above $200K.

The table below ranks all 50 metro areas by the income needed to buy a median-priced home, along with each metro’s median home price and monthly mortgage payment:

Rank	Metro Area	Q2 2026 (USD)
		Income Needed to Buy a Home	Median Home Price	Monthly Payment
1	San Jose	492,364	2,050,000	11,489
2	San Francisco	367,973	1,500,000	8,586
3	San Diego	256,735	1,075,000	5,990
4	Los Angeles	215,136	879,900	5,020
5	New York City	213,791	802,400	4,988
6	Boston	212,586	844,600	4,960
7	Seattle	200,835	815,000	4,686
8	Washington	174,110	688,200	4,063
9	Miami	164,691	659,000	3,843
10	Denver	161,920	668,300	3,778
11	Portland	151,400	611,100	3,533
12	Providence	150,771	580,900	3,518
13	Riverside/San Bernardino	149,302	605,000	3,484
14	Sacramento	142,726	560,000	3,330
15	Salt Lake City	142,461	601,200	3,324
16	Austin	138,268	485,400	3,226
17	Hartford	127,510	456,700	2,975
18	Chicago	121,817	438,600	2,842
19	Milwaukee	119,354	466,500	2,785
20	Baltimore	118,198	458,400	2,758
21	Raleigh	116,261	466,700	2,713
22	Orlando	115,986	450,000	2,706
23	Las Vegas	115,133	486,300	2,686
24	Philadelphia	113,570	419,800	2,650
25	Phoenix	113,144	477,700	2,640
26	Richmond	112,640	460,400	2,628
27	Dallas	110,651	380,100	2,582
28	Minneapolis	108,829	414,300	2,539
29	Jacksonville	108,295	417,500	2,527
30	Tampa	107,829	415,000	2,516
31	Charlotte	107,287	434,000	2,503
32	Nashville	103,046	420,900	2,404
33	Houston	99,848	345,200	2,330
34	Atlanta	99,594	387,000	2,324
35	Virginia Beach	97,743	387,000	2,281
36	Kansas City	96,683	370,600	2,256
37	Columbus	95,705	363,100	2,233
38	San Antonio	92,337	316,500	2,155
39	Cincinnati	87,772	341,500	2,048
40	Birmingham	85,983	352,200	2,006
41	Indianapolis	85,826	343,900	2,003
42	St. Louis	83,886	314,100	1,957
43	Buffalo	83,772	287,800	1,955
44	Detroit	82,913	311,800	1,935
45	New Orleans	80,193	304,200	1,871
46	Memphis	78,344	308,900	1,828
47	Louisville	75,811	297,400	1,769
48	Oklahoma City	73,747	269,900	1,721
49	Cleveland	71,871	258,500	1,677
50	Pittsburgh	71,567	267,700	1,670
--	National Average	112,695	434,900	2,630

All 12 Western metros require more than the national figure of $112.7K, while the cheaper half of the ranking consists of Southern and Midwestern metros, plus Buffalo and Pittsburgh.

In coastal California, much of what buyers pay for is the land itself. Land accounted for 59% to 68% of a single-family home’s value in the San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego metros in 2022, compared with 40% nationally and 22% in Pittsburgh, according to FHFA estimates.

In Most Metros, Typical Households Earn Too Little to Buy

Nationally, buyers needed $112.7K a year, about 29% more than the 2025 U.S. median household income of $87.5K, according to the Census Bureau.

The gap between home prices and household incomes is especially striking in San Jose. Although the typical household earns roughly twice the national median, the median home costs nearly five times as much as the national median. As a result, the typical local household earns only about one-third of the income needed to buy a median-priced home.

At the other end of the ranking, these five metros require the lowest salaries:

• Pittsburgh: $71.6K
• Cleveland: $71.9K
• Oklahoma City: $73.7K
• Louisville: $75.8K
• Memphis: $78.3K

Based on 2024 Census data, the latest available by metro area, median household incomes in Oklahoma City and Louisville fell short of the required salaries by less than 2%.

Homebuying Got Easier in the South and West

Compared with Q2 2025, the income needed fell in 30 of the 50 metros as the average 30-year mortgage rate dropped from 6.79% to 6.41%.

However, the required income rose in 13 of the 17 Midwest and Northeast metros, led by St. Louis (+3.8%), Hartford (+3.6%), and Providence (+3.3%). Even Pittsburgh and Cleveland, the two cheapest markets, became less affordable.

New construction helps explain the regional divide. The South and West accounted for 79% of single-family housing starts in 2025, despite holding about 63% of the U.S. population, according to Census Bureau data. All 10 metros where home prices fell were also in those two regions.

The table below shows how the income needed and median home prices changed in each metro from Q2 2025 to Q2 2026:

Metro Area	State	Region	Change, Q2 2025 to Q2 2026 (%)
			Income Needed to Buy a Home	Median Home Price
St. Louis	MO	Midwest	3.76	6.22
Hartford	CT	Northeast	3.56	7.97
Providence	RI	Northeast	3.28	7.43
Pittsburgh	PA	Northeast	2.95	6.78
Milwaukee	WI	Midwest	2.93	6.85
New York City	NY	Northeast	2.53	6.03
Jacksonville	FL	South	2.45	5.43
Detroit	MI	Midwest	2.45	6.09
Cleveland	OH	Midwest	2.44	6.20
Kansas City	MO	Midwest	2.37	4.45
Cincinnati	OH	Midwest	2.18	5.53
Chicago	IL	Midwest	2.05	5.74
San Francisco	CA	West	1.73	5.19
San Diego	CA	West	1.21	4.88
Virginia Beach	VA	South	0.91	3.98
Buffalo	NY	Northeast	0.75	3.45
Richmond	VA	South	0.63	3.79
New Orleans	LA	South	0.46	2.15
Columbus	OH	Midwest	0.18	3.21
Tampa	FL	South	0.16	2.47
Baltimore	MD	South	-0.02	3.01
Memphis	TN	South	-0.03	3.00
Indianapolis	IN	Midwest	-0.39	2.20
Birmingham	AL	South	-0.41	2.95
Philadelphia	PA	Northeast	-0.46	3.73
Miami	FL	South	-0.61	2.01
Louisville	KY	South	-1.06	1.95
Sacramento	CA	West	-1.08	1.82
Charlotte	NC	South	-1.12	0.56
Atlanta	GA	South	-1.43	0.91
Salt Lake City	UT	West	-1.44	2.24
Boston	MA	Northeast	-1.68	1.28
San Antonio	TX	South	-1.80	-0.31
Oklahoma City	OK	South	-1.94	0.15
Washington	DC	South	-1.98	0.92
Orlando	FL	South	-2.04	0.04
Denver	CO	West	-2.27	0.16
Raleigh	NC	South	-2.32	-0.83
Minneapolis	MN	Midwest	-2.35	0.53
Phoenix	AZ	West	-2.57	0.65
Houston	TX	South	-2.60	-1.20
Dallas	TX	South	-2.76	-0.68
Las Vegas	NV	West	-2.85	0.25
Austin	TX	South	-2.89	-1.30
Los Angeles	CA	West	-2.90	0.00
Portland	OR	West	-3.38	-0.60
Riverside/San Bernardino	CA	West	-3.51	-0.82
Nashville	TN	South	-4.17	-1.41
Seattle	WA	West	-4.89	-2.28
San Jose	CA	West	-6.67	-4.16
National Average	--	--	-1.12	1.49

Rising mortgage rates have since erased much of that relief. Freddie Mac’s average 30-year mortgage rate reached 7.40% in October 2026, its highest level since November 2023 and nearly a full percentage point above the Q2 average.

At that rate, buying the national median-priced home would require an annual income of approximately $122.6K, nearly $10K more than the Q2 figure. This illustrates how quickly borrowing costs can change affordability, even without a corresponding increase in home prices.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Years of Income Needed to Buy a Home by State on Voronoi.

A college education is now the norm for working-age adults in a growing number of wealthy countries, but the countries with the highest shares of graduates are not necessarily those with the largest numbers.

This graphic ranks 47 countries by the share of adults aged 25–64 with college or university qualifications, from two-year college diplomas to doctoral degrees. It also shows how many adults those shares represent.

The data comes from the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2026, covering 2025 or the latest available year (as early as 2023), combined with population estimates from the UN. China, which is not covered by the OECD data, uses 2020 census figures from the National Bureau of Statistics of China.

Canada Has the Highest Share of College-Educated Adults

Canada’s lead is partly explained by its extensive college sector, which offers qualifications beyond high school but below a bachelor’s degree.

Among Canadian adults, 25% have a two-year college diploma as their highest qualification, while 39% hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. Statistics Canada credits the country’s college sector and highly educated immigrant population for its leading position.

The table below shows the share and number of adults with college or university qualifications in each of the 47 countries:

Country	Adults With College or University Qualifications
	Share (%)	Number (Millions)
Canada	64	13.7
Ireland	59	1.6
Japan	58	35.1
South Korea	58	18.0
UK	55	19.6
Luxembourg	55	0.2
Australia	54	7.6
U.S.	52	93.0
Sweden	51	2.7
Israel	51	2.2
Norway	50	1.5
Lithuania	50	0.8
Belgium	47	2.9
Netherlands	46	4.4
Switzerland	46	2.3
Denmark	46	1.4
France	45	14.6
New Zealand	44	1.2
Iceland	44	0.1
Finland	43	1.2
Spain	42	11.2
Estonia	42	0.3
Latvia	41	0.4
Poland	40	8.4
Austria	38	1.9
Chile	37	4.1
Bulgaria	36	1.3
Germany	35	15.8
Greece	35	1.8
Slovenia	35	0.4
Portugal	33	1.8
Hungary	32	1.6
Croatia	31	0.6
Slovakia	30	0.9
Colombia	29	8.6
Czechia	29	1.6
Türkiye	28	13.3
Costa Rica	28	0.8
Argentina	23	5.4
Brazil	22	25.9
Mexico	22	14.8
Italy	22	7.0
Romania	19	2.0
China	18	152.4
India	16	119.2
Indonesia	13	19.0
South Africa	8	2.8
OECD Average	43	--

The U.S. ranks eighth at 52%, well above the OECD average of 43%. At the bachelor’s degree level or higher, the U.S. (41%) is slightly ahead of Canada (39%), meaning Canada’s overall advantage is driven by its much larger share of adults with shorter college qualifications.

China and India Have the Most College-Educated Adults

Population size reshuffles the ranking. China has the most adults with college or university qualifications at 152.4 million, based on its 2020 census, followed by India (119.2 million) and the U.S. (93.0 million).

Yet only 18% of working-age adults in China and 16% in India hold these qualifications, compared with 52% in the U.S.

Together, these three countries account for 56% of the 647.1 million college-educated adults across the 47 countries. Canada, despite leading by share, ranks 12th by total number at 13.7 million.

Richer Countries Tend to Have More College-Educated Adults

College attainment generally rises with national income. All nine countries in the ranking with GDP per capita below $35,000 have college attainment rates below 30%, based on World Bank data adjusted for purchasing power.

But wealth doesn’t tell the whole story.

Italy and the UK have nearly identical incomes per person, yet 55% of UK adults have college qualifications compared with just 22% in Italy. A third of Italian adults have not completed high school.

Germany (35%) and Austria (38%) also rank well below Japan (58%), despite having higher incomes per person. Both countries have strong apprenticeship systems that train skilled workers without requiring college degrees.

These examples show why college attainment alone doesn’t capture the full picture of a country’s education and workforce skills.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Best Countries at Reading on Voronoi.

Fast-food affordability depends on more than menu prices. Household income also plays a major role in determining how much a typical meal costs relative to local earnings.

This visualization ranks major U.S. cities by the combined cost of a burger, fried chicken sandwich, and pizza as a percentage of median monthly household income. The data comes from WalletHub and was collected as of Aug. 25, 2026.

The results reveal some surprising contrasts. Cities known for high living costs can rank among the most affordable for fast food, while places with lower menu prices can be significantly less affordable relative to local incomes.

Income Drives Detroit’s Affordability Gap

Detroit illustrates why fast-food affordability is about more than menu prices.

Its food prices are not the highest among the cities studied, but its roughly $40,000 median household income is the lowest in the dataset.

Most Expensive Cities	Fast food cost as % of household income
Detroit, MI	0.73%
Cleveland, OH	0.70%
Buffalo, NY	0.60%
Hialeah, FL	0.58%
Toledo, OH	0.57%
Birmingham, AL	0.57%
Newark, NJ	0.54%
Milwaukee, WI	0.54%
Baltimore, MD	0.54%
Memphis, TN	0.53%
Cincinnati, OH	0.52%
Miami, FL	0.51%
Baton Rouge, LA	0.51%
New Orleans, LA	0.48%
St. Louis, MO	0.48%
El Paso, TX	0.47%
Philadelphia, PA	0.46%
Los Angeles, CA	0.45%
Pittsburgh, PA	0.44%
Norfolk, VA	0.44%
Corpus Christi, TX	0.44%
Winston-Salem, NC	0.44%
Albuquerque, NM	0.43%
Tulsa, OK	0.43%
Fort Wayne, IN	0.43%

As a result, the fast-food basket represents 0.73% of median monthly household income in Detroit, compared with just 0.21% in Fremont. That makes Detroit’s share nearly 3.5 times as large as Fremont’s.

Cleveland ranks second-least affordable at 0.70%, followed by Buffalo at 0.60%.

Western Cities Lead the Affordable End

Western cities dominate the more affordable end of the ranking, accounting for 14 of the top 25.

California is a standout, with eight cities among the 25 most affordable. Despite its reputation for high living costs, San Francisco ranks near the top, with the fast-food basket representing just 0.27% of median monthly household income.

San Jose matches that figure, while Irvine comes in at 0.26%. Higher household incomes in these cities help offset more expensive menu prices.

Least Expensive Cities	Fast food cost as % of household income
Fremont, CA	0.21%
Plano, TX	0.24%
Gilbert, AZ	0.24%
Austin, TX	0.25%
Irvine, CA	0.26%
San Francisco, CA	0.27%
Scottsdale, AZ	0.27%
San Jose, CA	0.27%
Durham, NC	0.27%
Henderson, NV	0.27%
Chandler, AZ	0.27%
Washington, DC	0.27%
Seattle, WA	0.28%
Santa Clarita, CA	0.29%
Huntington Beach, CA	0.29%
Jersey City, NJ	0.29%
Raleigh, NC	0.30%
Boston, MA	0.30%
Chesapeake, VA	0.30%
North Las Vegas, NV	0.31%
Virginia Beach, VA	0.31%
Atlanta, GA	0.31%
Charlotte, NC	0.31%
San Diego, CA	0.32%
Chula Vista, CA	0.32%

Fremont leads the ranking at just 0.21%, followed by Plano, Texas, and Gilbert, Arizona, at 0.24% each. Austin follows at 0.25%.

Arizona also performs strongly, with Gilbert, Scottsdale, and Chandler all appearing among the 25 most affordable cities.

The Midwest and South Cluster at the Other Extreme

The South and Midwest account for 19 of the 25 least affordable cities in the dataset.

Ohio stands out in particular, with Cleveland, Toledo, and Cincinnati all appearing near the less-affordable end of the ranking.

Southern cities including Birmingham, Memphis, Miami, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans also feature prominently. Lower household incomes can make fast food less affordable even when menu prices are not unusually high.

Ultimately, the ranking highlights the difference between the price of fast food and its affordability. A cheaper meal does not necessarily represent a smaller financial burden when measured against local earnings.

Learn More on the Voronoi App

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Most Affordable Food Delivery Service by State on Voronoi.