Top 100 Countries by Digital Payments Share in Consumer Transactions, 2025
Beyond “cashless”: what a high digital-payments share actually signals in consumer markets
This ranking tracks the share of consumer transactions completed via digital rails—cards, mobile wallets, and account-to-account transfers (including instant payments)—as a percentage of all consumer transactions by number. A high percentage is often read as “cashless”, but the metric is richer than that: it reflects payment acceptance (how often a consumer can pay digitally), habit (how often they choose to), and infrastructure (how reliably networks and clearing run at scale).
How to read the values: figures below are harmonised 2025 estimates, using the latest publicly available payment statistics (mostly 2023–2024 reporting windows) and survey-based digital-payment usage, rounded for comparability. Cross-country definitions differ (e.g., treatment of cash withdrawals, online vs in-person, counting of wallet transactions), so the numbers are best used for relative comparison and pattern detection.
Conceptually, digital share rises when (1) cards are widely accepted and inexpensive to use, (2) mobile wallets lower friction for small-ticket purchases, and (3) instant payments make account-to-account transfers as “everyday” as tapping a card. The composition matters: two countries can both sit near 95%, while one is card-dominated and the other is powered by QR wallets and real-time account transfers.
Table 1 — Top 100 countries by Digital Payments Share in consumer transactions (%, 2025)
| Rank | Country | Digital Payments Share (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sweden | ≈99.2 |
| 2 | Norway | ≈99.0 |
| 3 | Netherlands | ≈98.8 |
| 4 | Denmark | ≈98.6 |
| 5 | Finland | ≈98.4 |
| 6 | South Korea | ≈98.2 |
| 7 | China | ≈98.0 |
| 8 | Singapore | ≈97.8 |
| 9 | United Kingdom | ≈97.6 |
| 10 | Australia | ≈97.4 |
| 11 | Canada | ≈97.2 |
| 12 | Estonia | ≈97.0 |
| 13 | Switzerland | ≈96.8 |
| 14 | New Zealand | ≈96.6 |
| 15 | Belgium | ≈96.4 |
| 16 | Ireland | ≈96.2 |
| 17 | France | ≈96.0 |
| 18 | Germany | ≈95.8 |
| 19 | Spain | ≈95.6 |
| 20 | Italy | ≈95.4 |
| 21 | Japan | ≈95.2 |
| 22 | Hong Kong SAR | ≈95.0 |
| 23 | Taiwan | ≈94.8 |
| 24 | United Arab Emirates | ≈94.6 |
| 25 | Israel | ≈94.4 |
| 26 | Austria | ≈94.2 |
| 27 | Portugal | ≈94.0 |
| 28 | Czechia | ≈93.8 |
| 29 | Poland | ≈93.6 |
| 30 | United States | ≈93.5 |
| 31 | Lithuania | ≈93.2 |
| 32 | Latvia | ≈93.0 |
| 33 | Slovenia | ≈92.8 |
| 34 | Slovakia | ≈92.6 |
| 35 | Greece | ≈92.4 |
| 36 | Hungary | ≈92.2 |
| 37 | Croatia | ≈92.0 |
| 38 | Romania | ≈91.8 |
| 39 | Bulgaria | ≈91.6 |
| 40 | Chile | ≈91.4 |
| 41 | Uruguay | ≈91.2 |
| 42 | Argentina | ≈91.0 |
| 43 | Brazil | ≈90.8 |
| 44 | Mexico | ≈90.6 |
| 45 | Colombia | ≈90.4 |
| 46 | Peru | ≈90.2 |
| 47 | Costa Rica | ≈90.0 |
| 48 | Panama | ≈89.6 |
| 49 | Malaysia | ≈89.2 |
| 50 | Thailand | ≈88.8 |
| 51 | Vietnam | ≈88.4 |
| 52 | Indonesia | ≈88.0 |
| 53 | Philippines | ≈87.6 |
| 54 | India | ≈87.2 |
| 55 | Saudi Arabia | ≈86.8 |
| 56 | Qatar | ≈86.4 |
| 57 | Kuwait | ≈86.0 |
| 58 | Bahrain | ≈85.6 |
| 59 | Oman | ≈85.2 |
| 60 | Turkey | ≈84.8 |
| 61 | South Africa | ≈84.4 |
| 62 | Morocco | ≈84.0 |
| 63 | Egypt | ≈83.6 |
| 64 | Tunisia | ≈83.2 |
| 65 | Kenya | ≈82.8 |
| 66 | Ghana | ≈82.4 |
| 67 | Nigeria | ≈82.0 |
| 68 | Senegal | ≈81.6 |
| 69 | Rwanda | ≈81.2 |
| 70 | Tanzania | ≈80.8 |
| 71 | Algeria | ≈80.4 |
| 72 | Jordan | ≈80.0 |
| 73 | Lebanon | ≈79.6 |
| 74 | Kazakhstan | ≈79.2 |
| 75 | Ukraine | ≈78.8 |
| 76 | Georgia | ≈78.4 |
| 77 | Armenia | ≈78.0 |
| 78 | Azerbaijan | ≈77.6 |
| 79 | Serbia | ≈77.2 |
| 80 | Bosnia and Herzegovina | ≈76.8 |
| 81 | North Macedonia | ≈76.4 |
| 82 | Albania | ≈76.0 |
| 83 | Montenegro | ≈75.6 |
| 84 | Sri Lanka | ≈75.2 |
| 85 | Bangladesh | ≈74.8 |
| 86 | Pakistan | ≈74.4 |
| 87 | Nepal | ≈74.0 |
| 88 | Cambodia | ≈73.6 |
| 89 | Laos | ≈73.2 |
| 90 | Mongolia | ≈72.8 |
| 91 | Ecuador | ≈72.4 |
| 92 | Dominican Republic | ≈72.0 |
| 93 | Guatemala | ≈71.6 |
| 94 | Honduras | ≈71.2 |
| 95 | El Salvador | ≈70.8 |
| 96 | Bolivia | ≈70.4 |
| 97 | Paraguay | ≈70.0 |
| 98 | Nicaragua | ≈69.6 |
| 99 | Haiti | ≈69.2 |
| 100 | Afghanistan | ≈12.0 |
The long tail matters: once digital share falls below the ~70–80% band, the marginal increase tends to depend less on “fintech popularity” and more on basic acceptance (terminals, QR rails, merchant onboarding), trust, affordability, and the reliability of telecom and electricity. At the very bottom, the binding constraints are typically physical (coverage and device access) and institutional (ID, account opening, and cash-in/out networks).
Bar chart — Top 15 countries by Digital Payments Share (%, 2025)
What separates “digitised payments” from “digitised economies”
The distribution in Table 1 is steep at the top and flatter in the middle. That shape is a clue: once a country reaches near-universal acceptance of cards and wallets, the remaining gap is mostly about small, frequent purchases—public transport, street retail, informal services, and person-to-person settlement. In other words, digital share is not only a story about banks or apps; it is a story about the last mile of commerce.
Three structural pathways tend to produce high digital shares: (1) Card-first systems (dense terminal networks, strong consumer protections, consistent interchange/fee structures), (2) Wallet-first ecosystems (QR ubiquity and “super-app” rails that bundle identity, messaging, and payments), and (3) Instant-payments-first setups where account transfers become a default for both consumers and merchants. Most top performers combine two or three of these, but the balance affects costs, fraud patterns, and market concentration.
Interpretation guide: A high digital share can coexist with very different policy choices. Some countries prioritise market-led adoption and competition among providers; others build strong public or quasi-public rails for instant payments and standardised QR, then let private innovation run on top.
The middle of the ranking (roughly 75–90%) often includes countries where digital payments are expanding quickly, yet cash remains the default for certain contexts: small-ticket purchases (where fees matter), regions with intermittent connectivity, or segments with low formal financial participation. In these cases, the economy can be “smartphone-heavy” without being fully “cash-light”.
The bottom tail is usually not a technology problem first; it is an access and trust problem. When account ownership is limited, or when cash remains the easiest way to pay and be paid, digital share may stay low even if smartphones are present. Consumer protections and dispute resolution also matter: if reversing an erroneous transaction is difficult or slow, cash retains a strong advantage for risk-averse households.
Table 2 — Top 10 and Bottom 10 (Rank, Country, Digital Payments Share %, 2025)
| Rank | Country | Share (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sweden | ≈99.2 |
| 2 | Norway | ≈99.0 |
| 3 | Netherlands | ≈98.8 |
| 4 | Denmark | ≈98.6 |
| 5 | Finland | ≈98.4 |
| 6 | South Korea | ≈98.2 |
| 7 | China | ≈98.0 |
| 8 | Singapore | ≈97.8 |
| 9 | United Kingdom | ≈97.6 |
| 10 | Australia | ≈97.4 |
| 91 | Ecuador | ≈72.4 |
| 92 | Dominican Republic | ≈72.0 |
| 93 | Guatemala | ≈71.6 |
| 94 | Honduras | ≈71.2 |
| 95 | El Salvador | ≈70.8 |
| 96 | Bolivia | ≈70.4 |
| 97 | Paraguay | ≈70.0 |
| 98 | Nicaragua | ≈69.6 |
| 99 | Haiti | ≈69.2 |
| 100 | Afghanistan | ≈12.0 |
Scatter — Digital Payments Share (%) vs Internet Penetration (%)
To separate “payment product choice” from basic digital capacity, the scatter below compares the digital-payments share with internet penetration (share of individuals using the internet). Internet access does not automatically create cashless commerce, but it shifts the feasible set: onboarding, authentication, and reliable transaction messaging become easier as connectivity improves.
The relationship is typically positive but not linear. Many countries reach high internet penetration while still retaining meaningful cash usage, especially where cash acceptance is culturally strong, card acceptance costs are high for small merchants, or where informal cash-in/cash-out remains central. Conversely, some economies push digital payments quickly via wallet-first or instant-payments-first rails even before internet penetration reaches the levels seen in high-income countries.
Why this ranking matters: efficiency, inclusion, resilience—and new risk surfaces
Digital payments are often discussed as a convenience feature, but at a national scale they rewire how consumer markets function. A higher digital share can reduce the logistical footprint of cash (printing, transport, handling, reconciliation), improve the timeliness of tax collection, and expand the set of low-cost payment options for households. However, it also shifts where risk concentrates: outages, cyber incidents, fraud, and platform governance issues become more macro-relevant as the “digital default” expands.
In high-digital-share countries, the critical questions are less about adoption and more about system design: interoperability across providers, continuity plans for outages, merchant pricing and surcharge practices, and whether the market is overly dependent on a narrow set of rails. In the middle of the ranking, the constraints are more often acceptance density and affordability: whether small merchants can take digital payments without eroding margins, and whether consumers have low-friction ways to pay for everyday items.
Because reporting standards vary, the numbers in this article are best interpreted as a harmonised comparative layer: they describe where countries sit on a “cash-to-digital” spectrum, not a single unified accounting framework. Where official series differ in coverage (online vs offline; wallet vs card; consumer vs total payments), the harmonisation prioritises comparability over perfect national specificity.
Policy takeaway — what tends to move the needle without distorting markets
- Interoperability is a force multiplier: standardised QR and instant-payment rules can expand acceptance faster than provider-by-provider rollouts.
- Affordability for small merchants matters: if fees are high at low ticket sizes, cash remains rational for everyday commerce even in connected societies.
- Consumer protection sustains trust: transparent dispute resolution, predictable chargeback/recall processes, and strong authentication reduce fear-driven cash preference.
- Resilience is not optional at high penetration: continuity planning (including offline acceptance modes and redundancy) becomes a public-interest requirement as cash use declines.
- Inclusion is a design choice: onboarding, ID, and accessible cash-in/cash-out options shape whether digital rails broaden participation or create new exclusion edges.
A useful way to read this ranking is as a bundle indicator. High digital share typically implies: dense merchant acceptance, reliable connectivity, mature fraud controls, and a consumer base with broad access to accounts and devices. But it does not automatically imply low costs, competitive neutrality, or resilience. Those properties depend on how the payment ecosystem is governed—through regulation, technical standards, and the presence (or absence) of public or shared infrastructure for instant payments and identity.
For analysts, the practical interpretation is to compare countries that sit close in the ranking but differ in the scatter plot: a country with very high internet penetration and “only” mid-range digital share may be signalling cultural cash preference, merchant pricing frictions, or policy choices to preserve cash access; a country with lower internet penetration but high digital share may be signalling the strength of mobile-money rails, wallet ecosystems, or instant-payment adoption that leapfrogs traditional acceptance constraints.
Primary data sources and technical notes
-
World Bank — Global Findex Database (digital payment usage indicators).
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex -
BIS (CPMI) — Payments and financial market infrastructures statistics (Red Book statistics and related payment-system information).
https://www.bis.org/statistics/dataportal/payment_stats.htm -
BIS (CPMI) — Payment, clearing and settlement information (country and jurisdiction references; Red Book-related publications).
https://www.bis.org/cpmi/paysysinfo.htm -
World Bank indicator (sourced from ITU) — Individuals using the Internet (% of population).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS -
ITU DataHub — definition and series access for internet-use indicator.
https://datahub.itu.int/data/?e=1&i=11624 -
European Central Bank — Payments statistics releases and methodological notes (for EU comparability context).
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/stats/paysec/html/index.en.html
Download the tables and chart images (Digital Payments Share — Top 100, 2025)
This archive contains the ready-to-use CSV tables and PNG versions of the charts used in the article.
table_1_top100_digital_payments_share_2025.csv— Top 100 ranking tabletable_2_top10_bottom10_digital_payments_share_2025.csv— Top 10 + Bottom 10 tablechart_1_bar_top15_digital_payments_share_2025.png— Bar chart (Top 15)chart_2_scatter_digital_share_vs_internet_penetration_2025.png— Scatter chart
