TOP 40 Most Affordable Rental Markets (Rent/Income, 2025)
Countries by Lowest Median Tenant Rent Burden
This ranking compares countries by the median tenant rent burden: rent payments for the primary residence as a percentage of household income. It is a rent-to-income ratio by country for tenant households, not a ranking of monthly rent prices. Lower values rank higher because the median tenant household spends a smaller share of income on rent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The 2026 snapshot is based on OECD Affordable Housing Database indicator HC1.2. The source release used here combines the HC1.2 PDF dated 3 October 2025 and the HC1.2 XLSX workbook listed on the OECD file hub on 6 October 2025. The country observations in the table range from 2017 to 2024, depending on the latest survey year available in the OECD notes.
The table contains 40 country rows. OECD and EU aggregates are excluded, and Hungary is not ranked because OECD notes that its data are under revision. All rows are OECD-calculated values based on survey or national statistical inputs; they are not modelled forecasts and they are not standalone national headline statistics. Page last reviewed: 16 June 2026.
Lowest rounded value among the 40 country rows included in the OECD HC1.2 tenant comparison.
The range between Bulgaria and Finland is 20 percentage points.
Countries only; OECD and EU aggregates are not mixed into the ranking.
40 OECD-calculated values; 0 forecasts; 0 modelled projections.
Overview: what the OECD rent burden ranking shows
Bulgaria, Czechia and Croatia occupy the first three positions, with median tenant rent burdens of 11%, 13% and 14%. The wider top group is mostly European, while Mexico and Costa Rica show that the lowest values are not limited to European rental systems.
The ranking is useful for comparing rental affordability by country because it links rent to household income. A country can rank well because rents are lower relative to incomes, because the rental sector contains many long-standing or subsidised tenancies, or because the national median does not capture the pressure faced by new renters in large cities.
Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland appear at the high-burden end of this table. That does not mean they have the weakest housing systems. It means their median tenant rent share is high in this specific OECD rent-burden measure, which should be read with information on tenure structure, social housing, rent regulation and city-level markets.
Top 10 countries by lowest median tenant rent burden
The Top 10 is defined by the lowest rounded median rent burden among tenant households. Equal rounded values are kept as separate rows and ordered by the OECD figure/workbook sequence used for this table. Adjacent countries with the same rounded percentage should not be read as meaningfully different unless the unrounded source value supports that difference.
| Rank | Country | Burden | Source note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bulgaria | 11% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 2 | Czechia | 13% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 3 | Croatia | 14% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 4 | Mexico | 15% | OECD-calculated; ENIGH 2022; gross income. |
| 5 | Slovenia | 16% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 6 | Lithuania | 16% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 7 | Costa Rica | 18% | OECD-calculated; ENAHO 2022; disposable income. |
| 8 | Poland | 18% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 9 | Germany | 18% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 10 | Türkiye | 18% | OECD-calculated; National SILC 2020; tax-adjustment limitation. |
Table note: direction is ascending. Lower median tenant rent burden ranks higher. Equal rounded values are ordered by the OECD display sequence used for this page.
Chart: 20 lowest median tenant rent burdens
The chart shows the 20 lowest OECD rent burden values in the table. Bar length represents the rent burden itself, so shorter bars are better.
Chart note: the 20 lowest rounded values range from Bulgaria at 11% to France at 21%.
Methodology
The metric is the median rent burden among tenant households. In the tenant panel used here, the relevant cost item is rent paid for the primary residence. The formula is rent payments divided by household income, multiplied by 100. The ranking direction is ascending: lower values rank higher.
Metric and unit
Median tenant rent burden = rent payments / household income × 100. Unit: percent of household income.
Income definition
OECD generally uses household disposable income, including social transfers such as housing allowances and excluding taxes. Income is equivalised for household size.
Value status
Rows are OECD-calculated values based on survey microdata and national statistical inputs. They are not direct national headline statistics.
Tie rule
Countries with the same rounded percentage remain separate rows and follow the OECD figure/workbook sequence used for this table.
The page is labelled as a 2026 snapshot because it uses the latest OECD HC1.2 source release used for this page: the HC1.2 PDF dated 3 October 2025 and the HC1.2 XLSX workbook listed on 6 October 2025. The country observations themselves range from 2017 to 2024, so the snapshot date refers to the source release and page review, not to a 2026 survey year for every country.
Comparability limits are important. Chile, Colombia, Mexico and the United States use gross income instead of disposable income because of data limitations, which can reduce comparability with rows based on disposable income. The United Kingdom net-income measure does not adjust for council taxes and housing benefits, and Türkiye net income does not adjust for personal income taxes. Japan uses respondent-level data due to source limitations.
Older source years should be read carefully. Israel and New Zealand use 2017 observations, Türkiye uses 2020, Australia uses 2021, and several countries use 2022 or 2023. These rows are included because they are the latest available observations in the OECD note, but their exact rank should not be interpreted as if all countries were measured in the same calendar year.
Tenure structure also matters. A national median can be affected by the mix of private tenants, subsidised tenants, long-standing contracts, new-market contracts and social rental housing. The metric does not measure absolute rent levels, city-level entry rents, dwelling quality, vacancy, waiting lists, security of tenure or the rent burden of low-income renters.
Full ranking: 40 countries by median tenant rent burden
The table lists all 40 country rows included in the OECD rent burden comparison. Use the controls to search country names, compare editorial regions, isolate source-year groups and switch between the original low-burden ranking and other display orders. The rank column always shows the original lower-is-better ranking.
Editorial region is used only for page navigation and comparison. It is not presented as an OECD regional classification.
| Rank | Country | Burden | Source note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bulgaria | 11% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 2 | Czechia | 13% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 3 | Croatia | 14% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 4 | Mexico | 15% | OECD-calculated; ENIGH 2022; gross income. |
| 5 | Slovenia | 16% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 6 | Lithuania | 16% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 7 | Costa Rica | 18% | OECD-calculated; ENAHO 2022; disposable income. |
| 8 | Poland | 18% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 9 | Germany | 18% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 10 | Türkiye | 18% | OECD-calculated; National SILC 2020; tax-adjustment limitation. |
| 11 | Austria | 19% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 12 | Ireland | 19% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 13 | Japan | 20% | OECD-calculated; JHPS 2023; respondent-level data. |
| 14 | Romania | 20% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 15 | Portugal | 20% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 16 | Malta | 20% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 17 | Italy | 21% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 18 | Estonia | 21% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 19 | Colombia | 21% | OECD-calculated; GEIH 2023; gross income. |
| 20 | France | 21% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 21 | Slovak Republic | 22% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 22 | Cyprus | 22% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 23 | United Kingdom | 22% | OECD-calculated; Understanding Society 2022; benefit/council-tax limitation. |
| 24 | Australia | 22% | OECD-calculated; HILDA 2021; latest OECD note. |
| 25 | Spain | 23% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 26 | Greece | 24% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 27 | United States | 24% | OECD-calculated; ACS 2023; gross income. |
| 28 | Canada | 24% | OECD-calculated; Canada Income Survey 2022. |
| 29 | Belgium | 24% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 30 | Switzerland | 24% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2023; disposable income. |
| 31 | Israel | 25% | OECD-calculated; Bank of Israel 2017. |
| 32 | Netherlands | 25% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; reduced rent grouped with private rent. |
| 33 | Luxembourg | 25% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 34 | New Zealand | 26% | OECD-calculated; HES / Stats NZ 2017. |
| 35 | Chile | 27% | OECD-calculated; CASEN 2022; gross income. |
| 36 | Iceland | 28% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; disposable income. |
| 37 | Denmark | 28% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; reduced rent grouped with private rent. |
| 38 | Sweden | 28% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; reduced rent grouped with private rent. |
| 39 | Norway | 29% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; subsidised tenants grouped with private tenants. |
| 40 | Finland | 31% | OECD-calculated; EU-SILC 2024; highest rounded value in this table. |
Source snapshot: OECD Affordable Housing Database HC1.2. PDF date: 3 October 2025. XLSX workbook listing: 6 October 2025. Values are rounded to whole percentage points. Direction: lower is better.
Insights from the table
The full spread is 20 percentage points
The lowest rounded value is 11% in Bulgaria and the highest is 31% in Finland. That gap is large enough to show meaningful differences in rent-to-income pressure, but it is still a national median rather than a city-level affordability test.
Tenure structure can shape the median
Countries with many long-standing rental contracts, subsidised-rate tenants or different private/social rental mixes can look different from countries where the median tenant is closer to the current market-entry renter.
Europe dominates because of dataset coverage
Most rows are European countries, but this reflects the OECD comparison and the editorial region grouping used on this page. It should not be read as a complete global rental affordability ranking.
Nordic values sit at the high end
Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland appear in the highest-burden part of the table. This does not directly measure welfare systems, housing quality, rent regulation, tenant protection or availability of social housing.
What this ranking means for readers
For renters
Use the ranking as a national benchmark for the typical tenant rent-to-income burden. Do not use it as a direct guide to apartment prices in a specific city, because capital-city rents and new-listing rents can differ sharply from national medians.
For analysts
Compare this OECD rent burden metric with low-income overburden rates, overcrowding, social rental housing, vacancy, rent indices and city-level data. A single national median is useful, but it cannot explain the whole housing market.
For policy readers
A high median burden can point to pressure on tenant households, but the diagnosis depends on supply, income support, rent regulation, tax treatment, social housing and local market concentration.
For comparisons
Be careful with countries using gross income, older survey years or special national notes. These rows are still useful, but the exact rank should be read with the source limitations in mind.
FAQ
Which country has the lowest median tenant rent burden in this table?
Bulgaria ranks first, with a rounded median tenant rent burden of 11% in the OECD HC1.2 snapshot used for this page.
Is this the same as a rent-to-income ratio?
Yes. In practical terms, it is a rent-to-income ratio for tenant households: rent payments divided by household income, expressed as a percentage. The table uses the OECD median value.
Does the ranking measure rent prices?
No. It measures rent relative to income. A country can have higher rents in absolute money but still rank better if incomes are also higher or if the rental-sector composition differs.
Why is the page called a 2026 snapshot if some data are older?
The page uses the latest OECD HC1.2 source release available for this ranking. The source release is from October 2025, while country observations range from 2017 to 2024 depending on the latest survey year available in the OECD notes.
Are these direct national official statistics?
No. The rows are OECD-calculated values based on survey microdata and national statistical inputs. The values come from the OECD Affordable Housing Database comparison and should not be described as separate national headline statistics.
Why do some rows use gross income?
OECD notes that Chile, Colombia, Mexico and the United States use gross income because of data limitations. Those rows remain useful, but they are less directly comparable with rows based on disposable income.
Why is Hungary not included?
Hungary is not ranked because the OECD HC1.2 note says that its data are under revision. Adding a revised or missing row would reduce reliability.
What is the biggest limitation of this ranking?
The main limitation is that it is a national median. It can hide affordability pressure among low-income renters, new renters and households in high-demand cities. It also mixes countries with different source years and income definitions.
Sources
OECD Affordable Housing Database — HC1.2 Housing costs over income
Main source for the ranking metric, definitions, figure notes and comparability limits. Used for the median tenant rent burden values.
OECD Affordable Housing Database — HC1.2 workbook
Structured workbook associated with HC1.2. Used for the country rows, source years and rounded values shown in the ranking table.
OECD Affordable Housing Database file hub
Directory used to confirm the HC1.2 PDF and XLSX listing dates for the source snapshot.
OECD HC1.5 Overview of affordable housing indicators
Context source explaining why no single housing affordability measure captures all rent, income, quality, location and tenure concerns.
