Cost of Living in 388 Cities Worldwide

Choosing a retiring destination or city you want to move to is a big step. Before you up and move to a place with the lowest unemployment rate or other benefits, note that the cost of living varies around with world. Take Switzerland for example. There are several Swiss cities that are almost 30% more expensive to live in than New York City (one of the most expensive in the U.S.) There are many other cities where the cost of living is notably higher than average. On the other hand, there are also cities where the cost of living is low. Plus, there are pairs of cities that while geographically faraway, are closer than you think when it comes to nearly identical costs of living. Find out all this and more as you keep on reading about the cost of living in 388 cities worldwide.

View Cost of Living in 388 Cities in a full screen map

The map above shows Numbeo’s list of the cost of living for 388 cities collected on June 27, 2019. While the list is ever-fluctuating, you’ll be able to see which cities are generally the most expensive when you sort by the highest cost of living range. The map also contains more information than the cost of living for each of these cities. In fact, there are multiple indices of interest.

Cost of Living: Indices Explained

Information about rent, groceries, restaurant prices, and local purchasing power are included on the map. The main cost of living index takes into account groceries, restaurants, transportation, and utilities, though it doesn’t include rent. That’s what the cost of living plus rent index is for. As for the local purchasing power, this describes the ability to buy goods and services based on the average wage in the city.

It’s important to note that New York City serves as the baseline for each city. As you’ll find on the map, the Big Apple gets 100’s across the board. Each index is subsequently compared to New York. For example, if Guatemala City’s cost of living is 44.23, it means that on average, Guatemala City is 55% cheaper to live in than New York. As with the cost of living, if a city’s local purchasing power is 41.92, as it is in Guatemala City, the inhabitants of that city with the average salary can afford to buy 58% fewer goods and services than New York City residents with an average salary.

Cities with the Highest and Lowest Cost of Living

With all that in mind, here are ten cities with the highest cost of living:

  1. Basel, Switzerland
  2. Zurich, Switzerland
  3. Lausanne, Switzerland
  4. Geneva, Switzerland
  5. Bern, Switzerland
  6. Stavanger, Norway
  7. Oslo, Norway
  8. Trondheim, Norway
  9. New York, NY, United States
  10. Bergen, Norway
Photo of Bern, Switzerland by Louis from Pexels

If this list looks familiar, it’s because the ten most expensive cities to live in mirrors the ten most expensive cities to spend Valentine’s Day. Swiss cities cost a lot of cash and Basel, Zurich, Lausanne, Geneva, and Bern make up 50% of the top ten list of the highest costs of living. Basel is the highest.

After the Swiss cities, the cost of living faces a steep decline. Stavanger, Norway, the 6th most expensive city, has a cost of living of 105.21, a nearly 15-point drop from #5. Like Switzerland, Norway monopolizes much of the top ten cities with the highest cost of living. Cities ranked #6, #7, #8, and #10 on the list are in Norway. And the U.S. makes its first appearance with the ninth city with the highest cost of living and the baseline for the rest of the world: New York. We mentioned #10 on the list belonged to Norway. Bergen happens to have the exact same cost of living as New York: 100. However, Bergen’s rent index is 37.11, and its cost of living plus rent is nearly 30% cheaper than N.Y. so it isn’t all the same.

As with the commute times and transportation rates within the U.S., we’re forever comparing Los Angeles to New York. You can’t just not compare two of the largest cities on opposite ends of the country. Though L.A. doesn’t appear in the top ten, the City of Angels is ranked #42. The average cost of living in L.A. is 20% less than living in New York. In fact, everything from rent to groceries and restaurants will cost you less in L.A. Los Angeles residents also have a higher purchasing power. Your hard-earned cash has 15% more power in L.A. when compared to N.Y.C.

Lowest Cost of Living

The ten cities where the cost of living is the lowest are all located in India or Pakistan:

  • Rawalpindi, Pakistan
  • Karachi, Pakistan
  • Thiruvananthapuram, India
  • Visakhapatnam, India
  • Islamabad, Pakistan
  • Lahore, Pakistan
  • Vijayawada, India
  • Kochi, India
  • Mysore, India
  • Bhubaneswar, India

Rawalpindi and Karachi are the least expensive cities to live in with respective cost of livings of 17.17 and 19.73. That means that living in Rawalpindi is nearly 83% cheaper than it would cost to live in New York City. However, there may be a downside to cheaper costs of living: houses could be worth little in these cities. India has six cities on this list, the cheapest of which is Thiruvananthapuram, which has a cost of living of 20.41.

While not the lowest of the low, the major cities of South America make for another interesting trend. The majority of South American cities have costs of living on the lower side, ranging between 54.29-41.76.

Distant Cities with Duplicate Costs of Living

Image by edar from Pixabay

We’ve discussed the cities with the highest cost of living and those with the lowest, but what about the cities with the nearly identical cost of livings? No, it’s not Basel, Zurich, Lausanne, Geneva, or Bern, Switzerland. The following cities are on opposite sides of the globe, yet though they are distant, they have duplicate costs of living. Aalborg, Denmark, and Tokyo, Japan have nearly identical costs of living despite being over 8,500 miles from each other. Aalborg’s cost of living is 90.28 while Tokyo’s is just .02 less at 90.26. A different Danish city has a similar cost of living as Boston, Massachusetts. Arhus, DK has a cost of living of 86.92 while Boston’s is 86.87. That’s only a .05 difference.

Now for the “thruple:” Dublin, Ireland, Sydney, Australia, and Singapore. The costs of living in these three cities are all within less than .2 of each other. Dublin cost of living is 79.61, followed by Sydney’s which is 79.52, and Singapore’s cost of living which is 79.4. And even though Paris, France is only officially a twin city with Rome, when it comes to cost of living, Paris is nearly identical — fraternal twins if you will — to Seattle, Washington. Though these two cities are 4,993 miles apart, their costs of living are only .09 away from each other. The cost of living in Paris is 85.91 while Seattle’s is 85.82. In case you were wondering, Rome’s cost of living is 71.08 which is nowhere near Paris’s. Seattle: 1; Rome: 0.

We found nine nearly identical costs of living between very distant cities. How many more can you find? There are lots of cities that are so close — in cost — yet so far away in distance. To calculate the distances between cities with similar costs of living on the map, just break out the digital measuring tape. BatchGeo’s Advanced Mode allows you to select the measuring tool (ruler icon in the top left corner of the map.) You can either click on the first option and drag your cursor from one location to another to see the distance between the two points, or you can nmeasure a boatload of distances from one point all at once by clicking on the multi-measure tool.

Well, we’re off to move to a nice moderately-priced city like Valencia, Spain (cost of living: 54.76), Ljubljana, Slovenia (cost of living: 55.82), or pretty much any city in Europe, aside from Switzerland, of course. The map showed us that the majority of the average-costing cities can be found in Europe. Maps like this one really illuminate data trends, so be sure to check out related maps you can make in minutes, including how to apartment hunting visually with a custom map, how to make an open house map, and how to visualize local crime data with a map.

Excel Data Visualization Examples

Sometimes data is difficult to wrap your head around. That’s where data visualization, or crafty graph work, comes in. You can use the same tool you’re likely already employing to store and manipulate your data — Microsoft Excel — to visualize the very same data. Excel is a formidable tool for data visualization.

Your Excel data probably looks similar to the data above. But it can be difficult for numbers to communicate data-related trends. Common data visualization examples using Excel feature charts, graphs, combinations, and their derivatives. Such diagrams speak a thousand words that can be hard to find in data.

Create Basic Data Visualizations in Excel

There are a number of visualization tools within Excel. While the multiple options can be overwhelming, you can get a lot of mileage out of the simplest of charts.

Bar and Column Chart Examples

Bar and column charts are understandable by even elementary and middle school children. The taller columns (vertical) or longer bars (horizontal) describe the data. You can even include multiple data to compare over time or for other situations.

Our sales data shows product and services revenue by month. When translated into a column chart, as above, you can see that services are always higher than products, but more volatile. It would be hard to get this story from numbers alone!

The same data can also be turned into a bar chart. In this case, and likely with most time-series data, column charts actually work best.

How to create a bar or column chart:

  1. Select your data
  2. Click Insert → Chart
  3. Select Column or Bar

Your version of Excel may have slightly different menus. You can also click an icon that looks like a chart or graph.

Line Graph Examples

Line graphs are more suitable for cases where individual data points are not so important. Technical analysis can build upon a simple line graph, including regression quotients, slope values, and extrapolation.

On the line graph example above, we’ve used the same data as before, but there are a few differences: we’re showing the total number of sales (instead of revenue) and it’s displayed over time in a way that may better explain the trends in this business.

How to create a line graph:

  1. Select your data
  2. Click Insert → Chart
  3. Select Line

Pie Chart Examples

Pie charts may be the most appealing of all the data visualization options. In a nutshell, pie charts are circular depictions of statistical proportions, using divisions. The bigger the slice of the pie, the larger the representation, and more generally, the importance.

Using another “slice” of the same data, we can see which regions provided most of the revenue.

How to create a pie chart:

  1. Select your data
  2. Click Insert → Chart
  3. Select Pie

Advanced Excel Data Visualization Examples

Advanced data visualizations become important when simpler diagrams just won’t cut it. This could be the case when there isn’t much difference between values, or you want to communicate multiple values at once.

Combine Charts and Graphs

We’ve shown revenue by month, in dollars. And we’ve shown sales by month, in number of purchases. Each is useful in its own way, but a more complete picture comes into view when we combine them in a single data visualization.

In July and August, there are a lot of sales, but there’s less revenue per sale. That story wasn’t easily visible before we merged the line graph and column chart.

How to create a combo chart:

  1. Select your data
  2. Click Insert → Chart
  3. Select Column
  4. Click Change Chart Type → Select Combo

The advanced type of a combo chart is not available in the first menu. However, you can change the type to include a column and line. Notice the selected option has the line values on the second Y-axis —that allows you to show different scales in a single chart.

Create Stacked Charts

Another advanced chart type is a stacked chart. Here we’ll use the exact same data as in our first column chart, but the information will be displayed in a smaller space, with a single column per month.

The added benefit here is that we’re more easily showing the total revenue per month. So, three values are communicated in each month’s column. The stacked chart is an advanced Excel visualization option that really packs a punch!

How to create a stacked chart:

  1. Select your data
  2. Click Insert → Chart
  3. Select Column
  4. Click Change Chart Type → Select Column → Select the visual of stacked columns

As with the combo chart, you need to dig into the chart type menu and select it visually. Of course, there’s a lot more you can do with chart design, but Excel can’t do quite every visualization, as we’re about to see.

Visualize Excel Data on a Map

One of the best ways to show data visually is with a map. Not all data fits this model, but if you have places—address, cities, or postal codes—plotting them on a map makes a lot of sense. Excel can’t do this itself, but luckily, BatchGeo’s Excel mapping tool makes it easy.

Plot Addresses as Map Markers

To make a map, make sure your Excel spreadsheet — or Google Sheet or Numbers — contains location data. Take the above spreadsheet about car mechanics around the Santa Monica area, which we used to make the following map.

View Santa Monica Mechanics (with Ratings) in a full screen map

How to:

  1. Copy and paste your spreadsheet data into
  2. Check to make sure you have the proper location data columns available by clicking “Validate and Set Options”
  3. Select the proper location column from each drop down
  4. Click “Make Map” and watch as the geocoder performs its process

Sum and Average Data in Map Clusters

Maps are a great way to visualize data. However, we can often find ourselves with more than just four data points. When “marker overload” leaves you with hundreds of markers on your map, preventing you from seeing trends clearly, you can summarize and average your data with map clustering.

View Household income, average clustering in a full screen map

Let’s say you have data similar to the map above which contains the household income of over 3,000 U.S. counties. Without map clustering, the would appear crowded and you may struggle to visualize your data. By following the steps below to enable map clustering, you’ll once again be able to visualize your data clearly.

How to:

  1. Copy and paste your spreadsheet into
  2. Click Validate and Set Options, then Advanced Options
  3. Click Enabled clustering for high density markers
  4. Select the new option to choose average and Median Income (or whatever your data example)
  5. Click Make Map

Make Your Map

No matter the Excel visualizations you use, you can add them to a map. Use our mapping tool to create your own embeddable map, or try including inline charts on your map to mix and match visualizations.

The 500 Largest Stadiums in the World

Picture 100,000 people in your head. Now visualize those 100,000 people as very specific types of individuals: sports fans. We mapped 537 of the world’s largest sports stadiums by their capacity. These notable venues range from holding 40,000 sports fans to holding more than 100,000. Which stadiums seat the most sports aficionados, and which seat the least? Which city is home to more than five of the largest sports stadiums in the world? And once and for all, are there more massive soccer stadiums or American football stadiums? Find out the answers to these questions and more as you continue reading about over 500 of the world’s largest sports stadiums.

View Largest Sports Stadiums in a full screen map

The map above provides the opportunity to sort the world’s largest sports stadiums — those with a capacity of 40,000 or more — by capacity. See the largest and smallest sports stadiums, and sort them by their main use. From soccer, American football, and cricket to all forms of rugby, select the sport you’re interested in and then select the range of capacity you wish to see, for example, “117K-74,624.”

100,000 Fans & More: Ten of the Most Spacious Sports Stadiums

There are only ten stadiums in the world that can hold over 100,000 people. These ten spacious stadiums are:

  • Rungrado 1st of May Stadium
  • Michigan Stadium
  • Beaver Stadium
  • Kyle Field
  • Neyland Stadium
  • Tiger Stadium
  • Ohio Stadium
  • Bryant-Denny Stadium
  • Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium
  • Melbourne Cricket Ground

Eight of the ten most spacious stadiums are located in the Southern or Midwestern regions of the United States. Michigan Stadium, located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, holds up to 110,601 people. Pennsylvania’s Beaver Stadium doesn’t reach its maximum capacity until person #106,572 enters the building. The fourth and ninth most spacious stadiums, Kyle Field and Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium are both located in Texas. Kyle Field can hold 102,733 Aggie fans while Austin’s Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium fills up at 100,119 people. Neyland, Tiger, Ohio, and Bryant-Denny stadiums are in Tennessee, Louisiana, Ohio, and Alabama, respectively. They each can hold between 101,821 and 102,455 fans. And, as you may have guessed from the many stadiums located in the country where football is the #1 sport, all of these stadiums were built specifically for American football.

Photo of the Rungrado 1st of May Stadium by CFTV Stadiums

That just leaves the #1 and #10 most spacious stadiums. The Rungrado 1st of May Stadium, located in Pyongyang, North Korea, is the most spacious stadium in the world. This enormous building holds up to 114,000 soccer fans. The main tenant of the stadium also known as the May Day Stadium is the Korea DPR national soccer team. This team has appeared in the World Cup two times but has yet to win, which is why they aren’t on the FIFA World Cup Finals Winners and Runners Up map. The Rungrado 1st of May Stadium is one of the only two stadiums in the top ten not used for American football. The second is Australia’s Melbourne Cricket Ground or the #10 most spacious stadium in the world. At the Melbourne Cricket Ground, you’ll witness cricket being played. The stadium holds no more than 100,024 people.

The Smaller of the Largest-Capacity Stadiums

In contrast to the ten most spacious stadiums in the world, there are 25 smaller stadiums on the map that hold no more than 40,000 people. While these stadiums are nearly three times smaller than the #1 most spacious stadium on the map, they still tower over the many stadiums below 40,000-capacity that didn’t make the map.

Over 60% of the smaller stadiums can be found in or near Southeast Asia. Bo’an Stadium, Kunming Tuodong Sports Center, Riverside Sports Center, and Wuhu Olympic Stadium are 40,000 max capacity stadiums located in China Malaysian stadiums including Darul Makmur, Hang Jebat, Negeri Pulau Pinang, and Sarawak stadiums are also among those that can hold no more than 40,000 people. There are also three smaller stadiums in India and Pakistan. Plus, Sri Lanka, Burma, Indonesia all have at least one small stadium. The majority of these places are reserved for soccer. We could include the OSC Metalist stadium in Kharkiv, Ukraine in this list of smallest-capacity stadiums, but their precise 40,003 people limit puts them three people above the cut-off.

Cities with the Most Stadiums & Their Main Uses

Some cities have more large stadiums than others. London, England, for example, is home to six stadiums that range in capacity between 42,055 and 90,000. Wembley Stadium is at the larger end of that range. It’s also the 16th highest capacity stadium in the world. Another city with multiple notable stadiums is Buenos Aires. The capital of Argentina has five large stadiums where various Club Atlético soccer teams play. They vary in capacity, the smallest holding no more than 43,494 people while the largest can hold up to 74,624 fans.

Mexico City, Istanbul, Houston, and São Paulo each have four larger stadiums. Istanbul, Turkey and Houston, Texas’s four stadiums are similar in size to the five stadiums in Buenos Aires. Istanbul’s stadiums range from 41,903 and 76,092 while Houston’s hold between 40,000 and 71,500 people. Mexico City’s Estadio Azteca is one of only three stadiums to host the FIFA World Cup more than once. This largest of the city’s four stadiums at 87,000 max-capacity, Estadio Azteca hosted the World Cup in 1970 and then again in 1986. The other three stadiums in Mexico City range between 41,262 and 65,000. São Paulo, Brazil’s four soccer stadiums can hold between 40,199-67,052 futebol fans.

The Main Uses of Stadiums Everywhere

American football may be the #1 sport in the U.S., but worldwide soccer is supreme. Of the over 530 notable stadiums on the map, more than 320 of them are dedicated to soccer. This includes 22 soccer stadiums that are ranked within the top 50 stadiums with the highest capacity and 43 soccer stadiums in the top 100. American football has just 115 stadiums.

While stadiums meant for American football are far fewer than those meant for soccer, American football stadiums tend to rank higher when it comes to capacity. Twenty-eight American football stadiums rank within the top top 50 stadiums with the highest capacity, compared to soccer’s 22 stadiums. This trend occurs again as 53 American football stadiums appear in the top 100 compared to soccer’s 43 stadiums that rank that high.

Twenty-nine stadiums are used for baseball while 25 are for cricket. If you were to combine stadiums meant for Rugby union and Rugby league, you’d get 17 stadiums. Shocking, there is only one 40,000+ basketball stadium, the Philippine Arena in Ciudad de Victoria, located in the Philippines. It holds 51,898 people.

Now that you know the May Day Stadium in North Korea holds the most sports fans, it’s time to pay it a visit. Or at least, add it to your map of where you want to go. Don’t have one yet? Create one now for free with the help of our simple data mapping tool.