Cities of the World – Cost and Quality of Life

A few days ago, I came across a chart showing a number of cities around the world ranked by cost and quality of life. The source is the Numbeo database, based in Serbia, dated August 2026. There will undoubtedly be a thousand possible questions and criticisms. The main objection is methodological. Anyone with an internet connection can rate a city, so the sample is neither random nor representative, and its size varies enormously from one city to another. Numbeo describes the ranking as reflecting the perceptions and experiences of its contributors rather than measured results.



Is this an appropriate topic for VF? I think so. When traveling abroad, you notice huge differences in lifestyle and naturally ask yourself: is it better here than there, or than at home? The question arises differently depending on the type of trip—short or medium-term tourism, or medium to long-term residence.

And we’re back to the methodology problem. Since anyone can submit ratings to the database, how do we know whether the ranking of a city like Novgorod, Quito, or Islamabad (chosen at random) comes from travelers, foreign residents, or only people who are native to the place and have never left their hometown?

The cost of living in the database is indexed based on restaurant prices, transportation, services, housing (rented or purchased), and income. Fair enough. For quality of life, they mention safety, medical services, traffic, pollution, and climate. I would have liked to see social quality of life (interpersonal relationships, nightlife, shows, restaurants, etc.) as well as the possibility of pleasant and interesting excursions included.

That said, I don’t think it’s completely meaningless. In any case, it can serve as a starting point for those interested in the topic. So, I’m posting the original chart here, along with two versions with my personal annotations. A few comments:

- In principle and in my opinion, there should be a simple cost-quality relationship, which I represent with a diagonal sector running from the bottom-left quadrant to the top-right quadrant—that is, from cheap but low-quality cities to expensive cities offering a higher quality of life. It’s no surprise to find several Australian cities at one extreme of this sector, for example. Take Melbourne: sure, it’s a very pleasant city to live in, but living or visiting there is very expensive.



- The bottom-right and top-left quadrants: these are the cities that don’t fit this expected relationship:

o Bottom-right quadrant: expensive cities with mediocre quality of life. London and Paris are here, along with several U.S. cities. No surprise there. The worst is Los Angeles, closely followed by London, Paris, New York, Chicago, Milan... I don’t think that’s a huge revelation. o Top-left quadrant: relatively affordable cities with a good quality of life. We find cities in Brazil (Curitiba, Florianópolis), Turkey (Antalya), Spain, and Portugal. I’m intrigued by the presence of Russian cities and Islamabad—again, who are the people rating these cities?



I was drawn to this chart after returning from a trip to Japan. I know some travelers don’t think much of Tokyo, but I had a good impression of it. So, I’m inclined to agree with ranking Tokyo right near Lisbon in the best quadrant. I’m even wondering if it wouldn’t be a good idea to move there for a few months. Other cities in Japan could be worth considering...

What do you think?

I think that the cost of living is just one factor among many, and anyone who bases their travel or expat decisions solely on that is heading for major disappointment...

Personal freedoms, freedom from religion, women’s rights, democracy, healthcare, climate, lack of overtourism, gastronomy—these are far more important!

Value for money only comes into play when comparing cities that have already passed those hurdles.

---/---

I also think this chart isn’t entirely up to date when it comes to costs.

Quality of life for cheap in Lisbon, Valencia, or Porto? That was a few years ago...

---/---

I don’t get the ranking of some French cities. The cost of living there isn’t nearly as high as in Zurich or Oslo—especially for services and food (both groceries and restaurants).

That’s interesting but should be taken with a grain of salt, as you mentioned. This kind of compilation probably says more about the contributors than about the cities themselves. You, too, seem to use this data as confirmation bias in your last paragraph.

What do you think?

Happiness is outside the cities. 😉

That's interesting but should be taken with a grain of salt, as you mentioned. This kind of ranking probably says more about the contributors than about the cities themselves. ...

I think so too. Numbeo themselves say:

‘Numbeo describes the ranking as reflecting the perceptions and experiences of its contributors rather than measured results.’

Happiness is outside cities. 😉

Now that’s a great thought! I agree. Big cities are fine for a while!

I think that the cost of living is just one factor among many, and anyone who bases their travel or expat plans solely on that is heading for major disappointment... Freedom of lifestyle, freedom from religion, women's freedom, democracy, healthcare, climate, lack of overtourism, gastronomy—these are far more important! Value for money comes next to help decide between cities that pass those initial hurdles.

I agree with you. I already criticized the fact that the 'quality of life' index didn't seem clearly established to me, but I forgot—writing a bit too quickly—to mention 'freedom of lifestyle, freedom from religion, women's freedom, democracy; lack of overtourism, gastronomy.'

---/---

I also think this chart isn't quite up to date regarding costs. Affordable quality of life in Lisbon, Valencia, or Porto? That was a few years ago...

Again, I completely agree. In fact, during my travels, I’ve often found that prices were higher than what various guides or online comments suggested.

The cost of housing in Lisbon has become horrendous, which is fueling increasingly tense political discussions. That said, a grocery basket (food) at a Pingo Doce in Lisbon is still much cheaper than in a French supermarket!

---/---

I don’t understand the ranking of some French cities. The cost of living there isn’t that exorbitant compared to Zurich or Oslo... Especially for services and food (both groceries and restaurants).

I only see Lyon and Paris on the chart, both well below Zurich or Oslo in terms of cost of living (especially Lyon).

I meant the value for money.

The x-axis of the graph shows prices, and the y-axis shows quality.

In Norway, it's very expensive, and the quality isn't worth the price.

You get more bang for your buck in Paris than in Oslo!

Even more so if you pair your dinner with a glass of wine...

As for the cost of living while traveling, I also don’t know how websites and testimonials manage to find such low prices. AI often misses the mark too...

My budget is average, but on those sites, it’s labeled as "high comfort."

Either we don’t have the same idea of high comfort, or their prices are from 15 years ago...

I meant the value for money.

The x-axis of the graph shows prices, and the y-axis shows quality.

That’s correct.

In Norway, it’s very expensive, and the quality doesn’t match the price.

You get more for your money in Paris than in Oslo!

Even more so if you pair your dinner with a glass of wine...

I see what you mean. Oslo is definitely more expensive than Paris, just like pretty much all of Scandinavia and Switzerland—countries considered ‘very wealthy.’ The difference isn’t huge on the x-axis (price), but it’s noticeable on the y-axis (quality). I think factors like safety, traffic, and pollution come into play.

If you know how to avoid the worst areas in Paris and have a budget that lets you enjoy what the city has to offer (like restaurants, for example), then I totally agree with you: Paris becomes preferable to Oslo. Besides, people often say you get bored in cities like Zurich, Geneva, and Oslo. I wonder if the social atmosphere is given enough weight in Numbeo.

For the cost of living while traveling, I don’t know how websites and testimonials manage to find such low prices. AI is often way off the mark...

My budget is average, but on those sites, it’s labeled as ‘high comfort’...

Either we don’t have the same idea of high comfort, or their prices are from 15 years ago...

I’ve gotten into the habit of checking 2 or 3 different sources when budgeting a trip and adding a 10 to 20 percent safety margin.

Hi there,

This is an interesting discussion thread, even if the two parameters—cost and quality of life—could use some clarification. You can feel great without meeting the criteria for "quality of life," which are inherently ideological and often reflect the values of where you come from or feel connected to. I’m struck by the fact that the cities with the worst "ratios" in the chart (bottom right) are cosmopolitan places without much cultural or social homogeneity.

During my travels, I’ve often found myself appreciating places where people know who they are, have a simple and clear sense of their identity, nation, or religion. Even if you don’t initially fit into that mold, the fact that most of the population does has always made things more pleasant and comfortable for me.

In the countries where I’ve spent real time—Turkey, Georgia, Japan, and now Hungary, which I’ve chosen for the future—there’s always been this constant: people know who they are, live in harmony, and aren’t in a state of constant identity tension.

When it comes to our ideas of democracy or lack thereof, it doesn’t really matter in the end. What counts for me is everyday freedom—the absence of state intrusion into personal life. An official religious façade? A state religion? It doesn’t matter what the façade is if it’s just a screen to live peacefully.

Michel

Hello,

..... I’m struck by the fact that the list of the worst "ratios" in the table, at the bottom right, consists of cosmopolitan cities with no cultural or social homogeneity.

.....

Michel

Hi Michel, and thanks for your reply. I’m noting this remark (quote above) in particular. It really speaks to quality of life. The cities at the bottom right—the expensive ones that don’t offer a good quality of life because they’re too heterogeneous—absolutely. All of these cities are located in developed countries. Isn’t this exactly the kind of unrest we’ve been seeing in Western Europe lately?

A few days ago, I came across a chart showing a number of cities around the world ranked by cost and quality of life.

Evening! The problem with these surveys and statistics is that they don’t include a "political stability" criterion. And yet, there are plenty of countries on Earth where things are pretty much a "mess," to put it casually. You can’t just look at the "business" side of things. If a city scores well but it’s chaotic—with lots of protests, vandalism, politicians yelling at each other—well, it doesn’t exactly make you want to live there... Take Poland, for example: what’s been happening there lately is a bit worrying. It’s like a coup in disguise. But when it comes to these kinds of brief political upheavals—a form of chaos—it actually works in some countries’ favor, if you catch my drift...

Evening! The problem with these surveys and statistics is that there’s no "political stability" criterion. And yet, there are plenty of countries on Earth where it’s basically "chaos"—to put it casually. You can’t just look at the "business" side.

A form of political chaos actually suits certain countries—you know where I’m looking...

Totally agree! The "political stability" criterion should be part of the ‘quality of life’ package.

In this context, I wonder to what extent cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv, which appear in the top quadrant, shouldn’t be viewed with extra caution.

Quality of life is so subjective! I see Dubai roughly in the middle of the chart, which would imply (relative to the rest) moderately expensive with average quality of life. From what little I know of the place, I’d say: expensive and poor quality (very artificial cultural and social life, climate too hot). I’d put Dubai in the bottom-right quadrant. It’s one of the last places I’d choose to spend my free time! But as they say: to each their own...

As for the political chaos that suits certain countries and following your gaze—I think I know exactly what you’re hinting at!

Good evening Georges, thanks for the message about Dubai. I don’t know that city—I just passed through the airport on a layover.

As for the political crisis in Poland, today’s article in *Le Figaro* seems to confirm the hunch I unfortunately had:

Poland reportedly foiled a provocation at the border with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad

link here

If a city is well-rated but it's chaotic, with lots of protests, vandalism, and politicians yelling at each other, well, it doesn’t make you want to live there...

Hi there,

Right now, chaos and protests are everywhere—Gen Z is rising up.

France gets a lot of attention, but there are also protests and vandalism in Germany, Milan, Turin, and more...

Gen Z is rebelling.

I’d say they’re doing what every other generation did at the same age. Boomers and Gen Z are ultimately the same.

protests and vandalism

Protesters are used by rioters as cover. They might get swept up in it, but that’s not their goal.

Rioters are mostly little brats from the far left who think they’re making a revolution before heading back to the comfort of their family’s apartment—usually in the nicer neighborhoods rather than some grim suburb...

They drag along a whole crowd of opportunists who aren’t even protesters, taking advantage of the open-door policy to steal whatever they can.