Top 30 Countries with the Lowest Gender Pay Gap in Europe (2025)
Why the lowest gender pay gaps in Europe deserve a closer read
This version should not be presented as a “Top 100”. For the Eurostat indicator used on this page, the honest maximum is a 30-country comparable ranking: 27 EU member states plus Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. The latest official release now refers to 2024, and those values are used here as the current benchmark.
The metric is Eurostat’s unadjusted gender pay gap: the difference between women’s and men’s average gross hourly earnings, expressed as a percentage of men’s earnings. Lower values are better. Negative values mean women’s average hourly earnings are slightly higher within the measured scope. That makes Luxembourg unusual, but it does not prove that every occupation or employer is parity-perfect.
Top 10 lowest gender pay gaps in the latest official comparable release
Luxembourg remains the only economy in this dataset with a negative headline gap. That signals a reversal in the average hourly earnings outcome, not the end of structural inequality.
Belgium stays near zero and is one of the clearest examples of a very low headline gap in a large European labour market with structured wage-setting traditions.
Romania keeps a low single-digit headline gap, but this should be read alongside labour-force participation, sector mix and career progression rather than as a stand-alone fairness verdict.
Poland records one of the most notable annual improvements in the table. Even so, a smaller headline gap still needs context on occupation, management and working-time patterns.
Malta remains inside the low-gap group. Eurostat’s broader sector tables still suggest that national averages can hide much wider differences in specific labour-market segments.
Italy is still low in the ranking, but the direction changed unfavourably in 2024. This is a reminder that a low gap can widen again when employment composition or sector dynamics shift.
Croatia remains in the single-digit group. The headline is relatively strong, but the part-time split is much less flattering, which matters for interpretation.
Portugal improved year on year and sits comfortably below the EU average. Yet its private-sector gap remains materially higher than the national headline.
Spain’s position improved and stays below the EU average. It is a good example of why readers should separate a decent national average from what happens in individual sectors and roles.
Slovenia still stays in the top 10, but its headline widened. It is also the key exception in Eurostat’s public-versus-private comparison, where the public-sector gap is higher in absolute terms than the private-sector one.
Table 1. Top 10 lowest gender pay gaps in Europe (latest official comparable release)
| Rank | Country | Gap in 2024 | Change vs 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Luxembourg | −0.8% | +0.1 pp |
| 2 | Belgium | 0.7% | 0.0 pp |
| 3 | Romania | 3.7% | −0.1 pp |
| 4 | Poland | 4.0% | −3.8 pp |
| 5 | Malta | 4.9% | −0.2 pp |
| 6 | Italy | 5.3% | +3.1 pp |
| 7 | Croatia | 6.6% | −0.8 pp |
| 8 | Portugal | 7.0% | −1.6 pp |
| 9 | Spain | 7.3% | −1.9 pp |
| 10 | Slovenia | 8.0% | +2.6 pp |
Lower is better. Negative values mean women’s average hourly earnings are slightly higher than men’s within the measured scope of the Eurostat indicator.
Chart 1. The 20 lowest gender pay gaps in the current comparable European ranking
This chart shows the low-gap end of the table, sorted from the smallest value upward. It is useful because the distance between countries is not uniform: the first five entries are tightly clustered, then the gap to the EU average widens quickly.
Chart fallback: if Chart.js does not load, use the same ranking as text.
- 1. Luxembourg: −0.8%
- 2. Belgium: 0.7%
- 3. Romania: 3.7%
- 4. Poland: 4.0%
- 5. Malta: 4.9%
- 6. Italy: 5.3%
- 7. Croatia: 6.6%
- 8. Portugal: 7.0%
- 9. Spain: 7.3%
- 10. Slovenia: 8.0%
- 11. Ireland: 8.3%
- 12. Lithuania: 10.0%
- 13. Iceland: 11.1%
- 14. Netherlands: 11.2%
- 15. Sweden: 11.2%
- 16. Cyprus: 11.8%
- 17. France: 11.8%
- 18. Bulgaria: 12.0%
- 19. Norway: 13.0%
- 20. Greece: 13.4%
Methodology
The ranking uses Eurostat’s sdg_05_20 indicator, “gender pay gap in unadjusted form”. It measures the difference between average gross hourly earnings of male and female paid employees as a percentage of average gross hourly earnings of men. This page is ranked from the smallest value to the largest, because the editorial question here is which economies report the lowest headline gap.
Coverage is broadly the standard Eurostat scope for the business economy: enterprises with 10 or more employees and NACE Rev. 2 sections B to S excluding O for most countries. Eurostat flags two important comparability notes: Czechia uses enterprises with 1 or more employees, while Iceland has a narrower sector coverage. Eurostat also notes that the definition differs for Czechia and Norway.
The current version uses 2024 country values because that is now the latest official comparable release. These 2024 values are provisional until the next benchmark update based on the Structure of Earnings Survey becomes available. For the annual change column, this page compares the 2024 release with the published 2023 release using the same Eurostat framework.
The main limitation is built into the indicator itself: it is unadjusted. That means it does not isolate “equal pay for equal work” and does not remove the effects of occupation, seniority, sector mix, bonuses, hours, career interruptions or management representation. It is best read as a structural headline signal, not as a courtroom test of discrimination. For that reason, this page does not mix Eurostat with OECD’s different gender wage-gap indicator.
Insights and takeaways from the updated ranking
The first pattern is that there is no honest Top 100 here. This is a European benchmark with a fixed comparable universe. That matters because it protects comparability. Once a page starts blending Eurostat with OECD or national sources, the ranking may get longer, but it stops answering one clean question with one clean definition.
The second pattern is that the low-gap group is not limited to one European subregion. Western Europe contributes Luxembourg and Belgium; Eastern Europe contributes Romania and Poland; Southern Europe contributes Malta, Italy, Croatia, Portugal, Spain and Slovenia. That tells readers that low headline gaps can emerge under quite different labour-market models. The common denominator is not geography alone.
The third pattern is that direction matters as much as level. Poland improved sharply year on year, while Spain and Portugal also moved lower. At the same time, Italy and Slovenia worsened while staying in the top 10. In other words, a good rank is not the same thing as a stable trajectory.
The fourth pattern is the one most viral charts miss: a low national headline can coexist with much wider splits by working time or by sector. Eurostat’s own tables show that part-time and full-time gaps can look very different, and that in almost every EU country the private-sector gap is wider than the public-sector one. This is exactly why the full table and the second chart matter more than a simple “winner list”.
What this means for readers
For employees, the practical message is simple: a low country-level gap is a better environment signal, not a personal guarantee. It tells you that average hourly earnings outcomes are closer, but it does not tell you what happens in your employer, your occupation or your promotion track.
For employers, the ranking is useful as a governance benchmark. If your country already looks good, that is not a reason to relax. It is a reason to document pay bands, variable-pay rules, progression criteria and internal review procedures before transparency rules become more demanding.
For analysts, journalists and policy readers, the page works best when paired with at least three other lenses: female employment rates, part-time incidence and women in management. A headline gap that looks small can still coexist with low lifetime earnings if women are concentrated in lower-hour or lower-promotion tracks.
FAQ
No. This Eurostat indicator is unadjusted. It compares average hourly earnings outcomes across the measured economy, not like-for-like roles with identical seniority and working conditions.
A negative value means women’s average hourly earnings are slightly higher than men’s in the measured scope. That can happen because of workforce composition, sector mix, commuting patterns or selection effects.
Because this exact comparable Eurostat framework does not have 100 countries. The honest maximum is 30 economies. Stretching it into a fake Top 100 would mean mixing unlike indicators.
Among the countries in this comparable release, Latvia and Poland show the strongest year-on-year declines in the headline gap. That is improvement in the indicator, but not automatic proof that all underlying inequalities narrowed equally.
Yes. A low hourly pay gap can coexist with fewer women in senior roles, lower full-time participation, more career interruptions and a wider pension gap later in life.
Start with working-time splits, public-versus-private differences, female employment rates, the share of women in management and sector-level patterns. Those explain much more than the headline alone.
Full 30-country comparable table and a closer look at working-time splits
This block contains the complete ranking for the current Eurostat-compatible universe. All rows are written directly into the HTML, so the page remains readable without JavaScript. With JavaScript enabled, the search, sort and filters turn the static table into a more useful exploration tool.
Table 2. Full 30-country ranking by lowest unadjusted gender pay gap
| Rank | Country | Gap in 2024 | Change vs 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Luxembourg | −0.8% | +0.1 pp |
| 2 | Belgium | 0.7% | 0.0 pp |
| 3 | Romania | 3.7% | −0.1 pp |
| 4 | Poland | 4.0% | −3.8 pp |
| 5 | Malta | 4.9% | −0.2 pp |
| 6 | Italy | 5.3% | +3.1 pp |
| 7 | Croatia | 6.6% | −0.8 pp |
| 8 | Portugal | 7.0% | −1.6 pp |
| 9 | Spain | 7.3% | −1.9 pp |
| 10 | Slovenia | 8.0% | +2.6 pp |
| 11 | Ireland | 8.3% | −0.3 pp |
| 12 | Lithuania | 10.0% | −1.5 pp |
| 13 | Iceland | 11.1% | +1.3 pp |
| 14 | Netherlands | 11.2% | −1.3 pp |
| 15 | Sweden | 11.2% | 0.0 pp |
| 16 | Cyprus | 11.8% | −0.4 pp |
| 17 | France | 11.8% | −0.4 pp |
| 18 | Bulgaria | 12.0% | −1.5 pp |
| 19 | Norway | 13.0% | +0.2 pp |
| 20 | Greece | 13.4% | −0.2 pp |
| 21 | Latvia | 13.9% | −5.1 pp |
| 22 | Denmark | 14.0% | 0.0 pp |
| 23 | Germany | 15.6% | −2.0 pp |
| 24 | Slovakia | 15.7% | 0.0 pp |
| 25 | Switzerland | 16.0% | −1.2 pp |
| 26 | Finland | 16.3% | −0.5 pp |
| 27 | Hungary | 16.9% | −0.9 pp |
| 28 | Austria | 17.6% | −0.7 pp |
| 29 | Czechia | 18.5% | +0.5 pp |
| 30 | Estonia | 18.8% | +1.9 pp |
Source note: Eurostat unadjusted gender pay gap (sdg_05_20), 2024 release for current levels and 2023 release for year-on-year comparison.
Chart 2. Why the headline can mislead: part-time vs full-time gaps in selected low-gap countries
The countries below rank well on the overall indicator, but their internal splits tell a more complicated story. In several cases the part-time gap is much wider than the full-time gap; in others, the part-time figure even turns negative. This is one of the strongest reasons not to over-read the headline ranking.
Chart fallback: selected countries, part-time gap vs full-time gap in 2024.
- Belgium: part-time 16.1%, full-time −8.1%
- Romania: part-time −2.3%, full-time 1.6%
- Poland: part-time 7.5%, full-time 3.8%
- Malta: part-time −3.5%, full-time 5.2%
- Italy: part-time −1.4%, full-time −1.4%
- Croatia: part-time 21.9%, full-time 6.0%
- Portugal: part-time 17.6%, full-time 7.3%
- Spain: part-time 14.0%, full-time 1.1%
- Slovenia: part-time 23.8%, full-time 7.3%
How to interpret the ranking without overclaiming
The low-gap end of the table is informative, but it should never be read as a simple moral scoreboard. In this indicator, a country ranks well when average hourly earnings outcomes for men and women are closer within Eurostat’s measured scope. That can reflect healthier pay-setting institutions, narrower wage dispersion, more transparent pay bands, different employment structures, or a mix of all three.
The most important reading rule is this: a low headline gap is good news, but not a complete explanation. Countries such as Belgium and Luxembourg show that very low outcomes are possible. Countries such as Italy and Romania show that low national averages can coexist with very different stories once you look at participation, working hours, management pipelines or sectoral composition.
A ranking like this is strongest when used as a starting point for better questions: who works full-time, who gets promoted, where bonuses concentrate, and how much of the headline result comes from sector mix rather than equal outcomes inside comparable roles.
Policy takeaways
- Do not confuse a low average gap with solved pay equality. The gap can remain small while leadership representation, bonus structures or lifetime earnings still diverge materially.
- Pay transparency matters most before disputes happen. Clear pay bands, documented promotion criteria and defensible variable-pay rules lower both legal risk and management ambiguity.
- Working-time structure is central. Part-time and full-time gaps can move in opposite directions. Any serious equality audit should separate them.
- Private-sector monitoring deserves extra attention. Eurostat’s latest comparison shows that in almost every EU country with data, the private-sector gap is wider than the public-sector one.
- Trajectory matters. Poland, Spain and Portugal improved, while Italy and Slovenia moved the wrong way. Countries should be judged not only by level, but also by stability over time.
- Do not build a fake global ranking from incompatible sources. Eurostat and OECD measure related but different things. Mixing them into one “Top 100” creates a visually bigger table and a weaker methodology.
Editorial interpretation
The most useful conclusion for a general reader is that headline closeness in pay outcomes is possible, but it usually rests on structures rather than slogans: wage-setting rules, employment patterns, childcare realities, career continuity and how concentrated high-paying roles are.
For employers, this is also a timing issue. The EU Pay Transparency Directive is not abstract future talk anymore. It has a concrete transposition timeline, and the practical response is not better messaging but better documentation: job architecture, pay ranges, pay criteria and review procedures.
For the page itself, the cleanest editorial choice is to rename it around the real data universe rather than stretch it into a “Top 100”. The better version is stronger because it is narrower, more honest and easier to defend.
Sources
-
Eurostat — Gender pay gap statistics
Latest official overview article with 2024 highlights, methodological notes and country-level context.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics -
Eurostat Data Browser — sdg_05_20
Primary country dataset for the unadjusted gender pay gap used for the ranking.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/SDG_05_20/default/line?lang=en -
Eurostat — Gender pay gaps in the European Union, 2025 edition
Statistical working paper based on SES 2022, useful for decomposition and drivers behind the unadjusted gap.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-working-papers/w/ks-01-25-035 -
EUR-Lex — Directive (EU) 2023/970
Official legal text on pay transparency and enforcement mechanisms. The transposition deadline is 7 June 2026.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/970/oj/eng -
EUR-Lex — National implementation tracker
Useful for checking where member states are in the transposition process.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/NIM/?uri=CELEX%3A32023L0970 -
OECD — Gender wage gap
Official OECD definition page. Included here to show why this page does not merge Eurostat and OECD rankings into one table.
https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/gender-wage-gap.html
