Top 10 countries by port quality
Top 10 Countries by Port Quality (WEF “Quality of Port Infrastructure”, 1–7)
Updated: 2026-02-07 · Latest globally comparable year: 2019 · Higher score = better
Why this metric?
The WEF “Quality of port infrastructure” score is one of the few country-level measures that is both globally comparable and focused specifically on port infrastructure quality and access. It comes from the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey, where business executives rate the condition and extensiveness of port facilities on a 1–7 scale. In landlocked economies, the item is phrased around how accessible port facilities are.
Treat this ranking as a comparable baseline for perceived port infrastructure quality at the country level. For hard operational outcomes such as vessel time in port and congestion, use port-level benchmarking such as the World Bank’s Container Port Performance Index (CPPI).
Construction note: World Bank metadata for the corresponding WDI series (IQ.WEF.PORT.XQ) describes sector-weighted aggregation and a two-year moving average (latest year combined with the previous year). In current World Bank indicator pages, the series may be marked as no longer available as a downloadable time series, while metadata remains accessible.
Top 10 snapshot (WEF 2019)
Scores rounded to one decimal. This Top 10 reflects commonly reproduced WEF 2019 country values in replicated ranking lists.
Integrated hub with world-class terminals and digital port community systems.
Practical takeaway: treat documentation + terminal + hinterland flows as one coordinated platform.
Ice-class operations and winter reliability across Baltic gateways.
Practical takeaway: build extreme-weather reliability into everyday service-level commitments.
Rotterdam/Amsterdam ecosystem combining scale, automation, and dense hinterland links.
Practical takeaway: pair mega-hub terminals with fast inland evacuation by rail and barge.
Deep-water terminals and dense feedering to the Pearl River Delta (PRD).
Practical takeaway: protect hub status with predictable yard/truck interfaces and fast feeder networks.
North Sea/Baltic gateway strengths supported by stable maritime governance.
Practical takeaway: tailor KPIs and capex planning to cargo mix (Ro-Ro vs containers).
High operational standards and logistics integration at core gateways.
Practical takeaway: embed business-continuity and quick-recovery playbooks into contracts and operations.
Canal-adjacent hub strategy linking Atlantic–Pacific routes through transshipment.
Practical takeaway: specialize in transshipment agility to convert location into service frequency.
Antwerp–Bruges cluster with industrial scale and logistics specialization.
Practical takeaway: industrial co-location helps stabilize volumes and justify modernization capex.
Agile Baltic gateways supported by strong digital public services.
Practical takeaway: paperless corridors and a real single window reduce dwell time and friction.
Tier-1 gateways with ongoing deepening, intermodal expansion, and modernization.
Practical takeaway: balance berth/yard investment with inland rail staging and truck appointment systems.
Top 10 table (WEF 2019)
| Rank | Country | Score (1–7) | Short note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Singapore | 6.5 | Integrated hub with world-class terminals and digital port community systems |
| 2 | Finland | 6.4 | Ice-class operations, efficient Baltic gateways, strong winter services |
| 3 | Netherlands | 6.4 | Rotterdam/Amsterdam ecosystem; scale, automation, hinterland links |
| 4 | Hong Kong SAR | 6.3 | Deep-water terminals, dense feedering to PRD; high operational intensity |
| 5 | Denmark | 5.8 | North Sea/Baltic gateway and short-sea strength; strong governance |
| 6 | Japan | 5.8 | High operational standards and advanced logistics integration |
| 7 | Panama | 5.7 | Canal-adjacent hub strategy linking Atlantic–Pacific routes |
| 8 | Belgium | 5.6 | Antwerp–Bruges cluster; petrochemicals/logistics scale effects |
| 9 | Estonia | 5.6 | Agile Baltic gateways; digitalization and fast customs processes |
| 10 | United States | 5.6 | Tier-1 gateways with modernization; intermodal upgrades in progress |
Bar chart — Port Quality Scores (Top 10, higher is better)
The bars show Top 10 country scores (WEF 2019). The line marks the 2019 world average (4.03) as shown in replicated country lists. If the chart does not load, the fallback list below remains visible.
Fallback (static list)
- Singapore — 6.5
- Finland — 6.4
- Netherlands — 6.4
- Hong Kong SAR — 6.3
- Denmark — 5.8
- Japan — 5.8
- Panama — 5.7
- Belgium — 5.6
- Estonia — 5.6
- United States — 5.6
World average (2019, 139 countries): 4.03.
Methodology (what the number represents)
The “Quality of port infrastructure” score comes from the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey and is reported on a 1–7 scale (1 = extremely underdeveloped/poor; 7 = well developed and efficient by international standards). Executives assess port facilities in their country; in landlocked economies, the question focuses on accessibility of port facilities.
World Bank metadata for the corresponding WDI series (IQ.WEF.PORT.XQ) describes sector-weighted aggregation and a two-year moving average construction (latest year combined with the previous year), which smooths typical survey noise. In the EOS 2019 wave, 16,936 executives in 139 economies were surveyed (with a smaller retained sample after data cleaning, per WEF documentation).
Interpretation boundary: this is a perceived infrastructure quality signal, not a direct productivity benchmark. For operational performance, use port-level measures such as CPPI (time in port and related components).
How to read this alongside performance metrics
- Use WEF for country comparisons: how users perceive port infrastructure quality and access in a national gateway system.
- Use CPPI for port comparisons: operational performance at specific container ports (time in port and related efficiency signals).
- Expect divergence: a country can have strong infrastructure perception and still face episodic congestion (labor shocks, inland bottlenecks, schedule surges).
- Track upgrades carefully: perception-based series may lag physical modernization, digitalization, or procedural reforms.
What the Top 10 tells you (and what it does not)
Interpretation
A high WEF port quality score typically signals that firms experience a national gateway system as reliable: port facilities, access, and supporting processes feel predictable and fit for high-throughput trade. The Top 10 tends to concentrate in economies that combine modern terminals with strong governance and inland connectivity.
What it does not provide: a direct measure of ship turnaround time, berth productivity, or crane rates. Those are operational outcomes best assessed at the port level with performance indices such as CPPI and with local throughput data.
Policy and operations takeaways
- Focus on flow, not only assets: yard capacity, gate operations, rail staging, and inland corridors determine whether quay productivity becomes real throughput.
- Digitize the chain of custody: single window processes and a mature port community system reduce dwell time and “manual friction.”
- Design for resilience: extreme weather, labor disruption, and incident response readiness matter to user experience and therefore to perceptions.
- Governance is infrastructure: predictable concessions, transparent rules, and credible long-term planning show up in perceived quality.
- Validate with hard metrics: pair this ranking with port-level time-in-port and congestion tracking for investment decisions.
What this means for readers
- Importers/exporters: higher-scoring environments generally imply fewer procedural surprises and more reliable routing, but always check port-level congestion history.
- Logistics planners: use WEF as a screening signal for country gateway quality; then validate with time-in-port, dwell time, and inland bottleneck indicators.
- Investors and analysts: a mismatch between perceived quality and measured port performance can flag coordination issues (governance, inland constraints, or process design).
FAQ
Is this a “hard” productivity ranking of ports?
No. It is a survey-based country score about perceived port infrastructure quality and accessibility. It does not directly measure crane productivity, berth utilization, or vessel time in port.
Why is 2019 used as the latest comparable year?
The commonly reproduced global country series for this specific WEF item is available through 2019 in replicated country lists, and it is widely treated as the last broadly comparable cross-country baseline for the same wording and coverage. For newer performance context, use port-level indices such as CPPI.
Why does Singapore rank #1?
Singapore is consistently viewed as a tightly integrated hub with high-quality terminals and strong digital coordination across port community stakeholders, supporting reliability at scale.
Do landlocked countries appear in the indicator?
Yes. In landlocked economies the item is phrased around accessibility of port facilities, rather than domestic seaport infrastructure.
What should I use for operational performance (congestion/time in port)?
Use port-level benchmarking such as the World Bank’s Container Port Performance Index (CPPI), which is designed around time in port and related performance components.
Can perception-based scores lag real upgrades?
Yes. Survey-based measures can lag recent capital upgrades or procedural reforms, especially when user experience changes gradually. Combine this ranking with operational data and local context.
Sources (clickable)
- WEF — Global Competitiveness Report 2019 downloads hub (Appendices, including EOS documentation): weforum.org (downloads)
- WEF — Appendix B web page (Executive Opinion Survey, sample size and fieldwork description): weforum.org (appendix-b)
- WEF — Executive Opinion Survey PDF (Appendix B): WEF_GCR_2019_Appendix_B.pdf
- World Bank (WDI metadata) — Indicator definition and construction (IQ.WEF.PORT.XQ): databank.worldbank.org (metadata)
- Country ranking list (WEF values reproduced) — TheGlobalEconomy: “Quality of port infrastructure, 2019”: theglobaleconomy.com (rankings)
- World Bank — Container Port Performance Index 2024 publication hub (port-level performance context): worldbank.org (CPPI 2024)
- World Bank Open Knowledge — CPPI 2024 report record: openknowledge.worldbank.org (CPPI)
- World Bank press release (CPPI 2023 context): worldbank.org (press release)
Reading guide: use WEF to compare perceived country-level port infrastructure quality; use CPPI to compare operational performance at specific container ports.
Port Quality (WEF 2019) — tables & chart images
- Data: CSV + JSON (Top 10 country scores, WEF 2019)
- Table: HTML (Top 10)
- Charts: PNG + SVG (bar chart with world-average reference line)
- Docs: README + SOURCES
