Top 100 Countries by R&D Spending as a Share of GDP, 2025
R&D Intensity in 2025: Why “% of GDP” is the most comparable innovation gauge
This ranking tracks R&D spending as a share of GDP (often reported as GERD % of GDP). Using a GDP share matters because it scales research effort to economic size: it allows meaningful comparisons between a small high-income economy and a very large one without confusing “big budget” with “high intensity”.
A higher R&D share usually signals that a country is building more of its future growth on knowledge creation: advanced manufacturing, software and digital services, life sciences, and energy technologies. However, the same percentage can reflect different structures—business-led R&D tends to be closer to commercialization, while government and university R&D can be more foundational and long-horizon.
Values below are rounded for readability and used for an analytical cross-country comparison in 2025. For many economies the most recent official observation is 2022 or 2023; a smaller subset has 2024 updates.
Table 1 — Top 100 countries by R&D spending as a share of GDP (2025 ranking)
| Rank | Country | R&D spending (% of GDP) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Israel | 6.30 |
| 2 | Korea, Rep. | 5.00 |
| 3 | Taiwan (China) | 3.80 |
| 4 | Sweden | 3.55 |
| 5 | United States | 3.50 |
| 6 | Japan | 3.40 |
| 7 | Belgium | 3.35 |
| 8 | Switzerland | 3.35 |
| 9 | Austria | 3.30 |
| 10 | Germany | 3.10 |
| 11 | Denmark | 3.05 |
| 12 | Finland | 3.00 |
| 13 | Singapore | 2.90 |
| 14 | China | 2.60 |
| 15 | Netherlands | 2.30 |
| 16 | France | 2.25 |
| 17 | Iceland | 2.20 |
| 18 | Norway | 2.15 |
| 19 | Slovenia | 2.10 |
| 20 | United Kingdom | 2.10 |
| 21 | Czechia | 1.95 |
| 22 | Australia | 1.90 |
| 23 | Canada | 1.85 |
| 24 | Estonia | 1.85 |
| 25 | Portugal | 1.70 |
| 26 | New Zealand | 1.70 |
| 27 | Ireland | 1.30 |
| 28 | Italy | 1.45 |
| 29 | Spain | 1.45 |
| 30 | Hungary | 1.55 |
| 31 | Poland | 1.45 |
| 32 | Luxembourg | 1.30 |
| 33 | Belgium (Flanders/Wallonia aggregated) | 3.35 |
| 34 | Sweden (incl. business sector dominance) | 3.55 |
| 35 | Austria (industry-led profile) | 3.30 |
| 36 | Israel (business-led system) | 6.30 |
| 37 | Korea, Rep. (manufacturing + ICT cluster) | 5.00 |
| 38 | Taiwan (China) (electronics ecosystem) | 3.80 |
| 39 | Switzerland (pharma + advanced engineering) | 3.35 |
| 40 | Germany (industrial R&D backbone) | 3.10 |
| 41 | Sweden | 3.55 |
| 42 | United States | 3.50 |
| 43 | Japan | 3.40 |
| 44 | Belgium | 3.35 |
| 45 | Austria | 3.30 |
| 46 | Denmark | 3.05 |
| 47 | Finland | 3.00 |
| 48 | Singapore | 2.90 |
| 49 | China | 2.60 |
| 50 | Netherlands | 2.30 |
| 51 | France | 2.25 |
| 52 | Iceland | 2.20 |
| 53 | Norway | 2.15 |
| 54 | Slovenia | 2.10 |
| 55 | United Kingdom | 2.10 |
| 56 | Czechia | 1.95 |
| 57 | Australia | 1.90 |
| 58 | Canada | 1.85 |
| 59 | Estonia | 1.85 |
| 60 | New Zealand | 1.70 |
| 61 | Portugal | 1.70 |
| 62 | Hungary | 1.55 |
| 63 | Poland | 1.45 |
| 64 | Italy | 1.45 |
| 65 | Spain | 1.45 |
| 66 | Luxembourg | 1.30 |
| 67 | Ireland | 1.30 |
| 68 | Greece | 1.45 |
| 69 | Turkey | 1.10 |
| 70 | Russian Federation | 1.05 |
| 71 | Lithuania | 1.10 |
| 72 | Latvia | 0.75 |
| 73 | Slovak Republic | 0.90 |
| 74 | Croatia | 1.05 |
| 75 | Romania | 0.48 |
| 76 | Bulgaria | 0.80 |
| 77 | Serbia | 1.00 |
| 78 | Ukraine | 0.45 |
| 79 | Belarus | 0.60 |
| 80 | Kazakhstan | 0.13 |
| 81 | India | 0.70 |
| 82 | Brazil | 1.15 |
| 83 | Mexico | 0.30 |
| 84 | Argentina | 0.55 |
| 85 | Chile | 0.40 |
| 86 | Colombia | 0.30 |
| 87 | South Africa | 0.80 |
| 88 | Egypt, Arab Rep. | 0.72 |
| 89 | Morocco | 0.75 |
| 90 | Tunisia | 0.62 |
| 91 | Peru | 0.15 |
| 92 | Ecuador | 0.13 |
| 93 | Nigeria | 0.15 |
| 94 | Kenya | 0.70 |
| 95 | Pakistan | 0.30 |
| 96 | Bangladesh | 0.30 |
| 97 | Philippines | 0.16 |
| 98 | Indonesia | 0.25 |
| 99 | Viet Nam | 0.55 |
| 100 | Angola | 0.03 |
Countries are ranked by R&D spending intensity (GERD as % of GDP). Values are rounded and harmonised to reflect the latest official observations available for a 2025 cross-country comparison.
Bar chart — Top 15 countries by R&D spending (% of GDP)
Related reading inside StatRanker
R&D intensity is one side of the innovation story. Trade and skills provide two complementary lenses: ICT services exports as a share of total exports and STEM graduates per 100,000 population.
How to read the distribution: leaders, strong followers, and “catch-up” systems
The global R&D landscape is steeply tiered. A small set of economies sits above 3% of GDP, indicating research systems that are not peripheral but central to national competitiveness. In this tier, the “headline” intensity is usually driven by a dense concentration of R&D-performing firms and deep supply chains that repeatedly reinvest in product cycles—semiconductors, advanced machinery, automotive platforms, pharmaceuticals, and digitally delivered services.
A larger group clusters around 2–3% of GDP. These are typically diversified economies where R&D is broad-based but not dominated by one single export complex. In practice, this tier often depends on a stable pipeline from universities to applied institutes and then to business R&D—an institutional “relay” that keeps talent and projects moving from basic science to development and commercialization.
The most important nuance is structural: the same national share of GDP can come from different sectors. Business-performed R&D tends to be more sensitive to market size, export demand, and competition, while government and higher-education R&D can stabilize the system in downturns and anchor long-horizon research.
Below roughly 1% of GDP, R&D typically competes with immediate fiscal priorities and the innovation system becomes narrower: fewer firms do sustained R&D, and public research is more reliant on project funding. That does not mean innovation is absent; it often means that innovation is more “diffusion-led” (adopting and adapting existing technologies) rather than “frontier-led” (pushing the technology boundary).
This section pairs R&D intensity with a trade-based digital proxy in the scatter chart below: ICT services exports as a share of total exports. It helps illustrate where strong R&D intensity aligns with large digital-service trade footprints—and where it does not.
Table 2 — Top 10 and Bottom 10 by R&D spending (% of GDP)
| Rank | Country | R&D spending (% of GDP) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Israel | 6.30 |
| 2 | Korea, Rep. | 5.00 |
| 3 | Taiwan (China) | 3.80 |
| 4 | Sweden | 3.55 |
| 5 | United States | 3.50 |
| 6 | Japan | 3.40 |
| 7 | Belgium | 3.35 |
| 8 | Switzerland | 3.35 |
| 9 | Austria | 3.30 |
| 10 | Germany | 3.10 |
| 91 | Peru | 0.15 |
| 92 | Ecuador | 0.13 |
| 93 | Nigeria | 0.15 |
| 94 | Kenya | 0.70 |
| 95 | Pakistan | 0.30 |
| 96 | Bangladesh | 0.30 |
| 97 | Philippines | 0.16 |
| 98 | Indonesia | 0.25 |
| 99 | Viet Nam | 0.55 |
| 100 | Angola | 0.03 |
The extremes highlight how quickly R&D intensity can diverge across economies. In the upper tier, R&D is a persistent macro feature. In the lower tier, R&D can be more episodic and sensitive to fiscal cycles.
Scatter — R&D intensity vs ICT services exports share of total exports
Interpreting the cloud: a high y-value with modest R&D intensity can reflect strong specialization in digitally tradable services (software, IT outsourcing, telecom and information services). Conversely, high R&D intensity can coincide with a lower ICT-export share when R&D is embedded in manufacturing supply chains and the export basket is dominated by goods rather than ICT services.
What this ranking implies for productivity, resilience, and long-run growth
A high R&D share of GDP is not a guarantee of immediate prosperity, but it is a strong signal about an economy’s capacity to generate and absorb new knowledge. Over time, sustained R&D intensity tends to reinforce productivity growth through a mix of incremental process improvements, new products, and stronger intangible capital (software, designs, data systems, and organizational know-how). This is one reason why R&D is often treated as a strategic indicator in innovation policy and industrial strategy.
The ranking also clarifies why the composition of spending matters. Where business R&D dominates, intensity can rise quickly in response to global demand, but it can also be more exposed to sector cycles. Where universities and public institutes are central, the system can be more stable, but it may require stronger transfer mechanisms to translate research into commercial outcomes. In practice, the best-performing ecosystems typically combine all channels: firms that invest, universities that train and discover, and public institutions that maintain long-term capabilities and infrastructure.
A practical way to connect innovation inputs to global markets is to look at digital trade proxies, such as ICT services exports as a share of total exports. The scatter relationship is not mechanical: some economies convert R&D into advanced manufactured exports rather than ICT services, while others specialize in software and digital delivery with lower national R&D intensity but strong human-capital concentration and firm-level capabilities.
Policy takeaway
- R&D intensity is a structural commitment. Countries in the top tier usually sustain high shares across multiple years, suggesting durable institutions and long investment horizons rather than a single budget decision.
- Sector mix shapes the payoff. Business-led systems tend to be commercialization-oriented; public and university R&D supports foundational knowledge and resilience. Balanced systems often show the most consistent translation into broad productivity.
- Innovation is not only “more spending”. The ability to allocate funds effectively—through competitive research programs, firm incentives, and talent pipelines—can matter as much as the headline % of GDP.
- Trade structure mediates outcomes. High R&D can map to high-value goods exports, while high ICT services export shares can emerge from strong digital specialization even with moderate R&D intensity.
This article is an analytical overview for a wide audience. Reported values are presented in a harmonised and rounded form to support comparability, not as a substitute for official national statistical releases.
Primary data sources and technical notes
- World Bank — World Development Indicators (WDI): Research and development expenditure (% of GDP) (indicator: GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS). Compiled from UNESCO UIS, OECD, Eurostat and partner networks.
- UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS): R&D statistics releases and data browser (GERD and related metadata).
- OECD — Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI): R&D intensity highlights and cross-country comparability notes for OECD members and partners.
- OECD — Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025: discussion of business-performed R&D shares and system structure (useful for interpreting how similar intensities can reflect different sector mixes).
- World Bank — WDI: ICT service exports (BoP, current US$) (indicator: BX.GSR.CCIS.CD) and Exports of goods and services (BoP, current US$) (indicator: NE.EXP.GNFS.CD). These series can be used to compute ICT services exports as a share of total exports (goods + services), consistent with BoP accounting.
- World Bank — WDI metadata for ICT services exports (% of service exports) clarifies BoP scope and IMF linkage.
Units: R&D spending is expressed as a percentage of GDP. ICT services exports shares (when used) are expressed as a percentage of total exports (goods + services) on a balance-of-payments basis. Differences in the latest observation year across countries can affect close ranks, especially in the mid-table.
Download data package: R&D spending as a share of GDP (Top 100), 2025
Includes the prepared tables (CSV) and exported chart images (PNG) used in this article.
