Top 100 Countries by Life Expectancy in 2025
Life expectancy in 2025: who lives longest — and how far above the global norm?
This ranking looks at life expectancy at birth — the average number of years a newborn is expected to live if current mortality patterns stay constant. It is not a prediction for any individual. It is a summary measure that combines mortality patterns across all ages.
Using the latest United Nations World Population Prospects 2024 estimates for countries and territories (total, female and male), presented here as a 2025 ranking view, we rank countries and territories from the longest-lived to the shortest-lived. The global picture is one of steady improvement: life expectancy recovered after the COVID-19 shock, with the UN 2024 revision placing global life expectancy at birth at 73.3 years in 2024. Current public country tables also place women globally above 76 years and men at roughly 71 years, but large gaps remain between high-income and lower-income regions.
Source basis: the ranking itself is built from UN WPP 2024 life expectancy values. World Bank life-expectancy indicators are used only as a cross-check for sovereign-country series, while the health-spending comparison later in the article uses the latest broadly comparable WHO / World Bank / OECD observations.
The table below highlights the Top 25 jurisdictions. Many of them are small, high-income states or territories with low infant mortality, strong cardiovascular prevention, and broad access to healthcare.
| Rank | Country / territory | Life expectancy (years) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Monaco | 86.5 |
| 2 | San Marino | 85.8 |
| 3 | Hong Kong | 85.6 |
| 4 | Japan | 84.8 |
| 5 | South Korea | 84.4 |
| 6 | Saint Barthelemy | 84.4 |
| 7 | French Polynesia | 84.2 |
| 8 | Andorra | 84.2 |
| 9 | Switzerland | 84.1 |
| 10 | Australia | 84.1 |
| 11 | Italy | 83.9 |
| 12 | Singapore | 83.9 |
| 13 | Spain | 83.8 |
| 14 | Liechtenstein | 83.8 |
| 15 | Reunion | 83.7 |
| 16 | Gibraltar | 83.6 |
| 17 | Malta | 83.5 |
| 18 | France | 83.5 |
| 19 | Norway | 83.5 |
| 20 | Sweden | 83.4 |
| 21 | Guernsey | 83.4 |
| 22 | Macau | 83.2 |
| 23 | Vatican City | 83.1 |
| 24 | United Arab Emirates | 83.1 |
| 25 | Iceland | 83.0 |
Note: life expectancy at birth, total (both sexes combined), rounded to one decimal place. Table 1 follows UN World Population Prospects 2024; World Bank series are used only as a consistency check for sovereign-country coverage.
Bars show the same UN WPP 2024 life expectancy values used in Table 1. Small differences across public tables usually come from rounding or from whether some territories are shown separately.
From Monaco to Aruba: the structure of the Top 100
How to read this section: the ranking uses UN WPP 2024 life-expectancy values and keeps the same country-and-territory coverage as the public comparison table used for the long list. The female-versus-male column shows the gender split behind each total value.
When we extend the view from the Top 25 to the Top 100 countries and territories, a clear hierarchy emerges. At the top sit small, very high-income jurisdictions with exceptionally low mortality at older ages. They are followed by a broad group of advanced economies — largely in Western Europe, North America and advanced Asia — followed by upper-middle-income countries that have moved much closer to high-income life expectancy over the past three decades.
By the time we reach the lower end of this table, life expectancy is still around 76–77 years. In other words, the territory-inclusive Top 100 shown here still sits well above the world average, even though the precise cut-off can shift slightly across public tables depending on how small jurisdictions are displayed.
The Top 100 ranking uses UN World Population Prospects 2024 life expectancy at birth values (total, female, male). World Bank indicators are used here mainly as a cross-check for sovereign-country series, while territory-level coverage comes from the UN-based public comparison table used for this ranking. The column “Female vs male” shows the gender pattern behind each total value: in almost all cases women live longer than men, often by 3–6 years, reflecting differences in both biological factors and risk patterns such as smoking, alcohol use, and injury rates.
| Rank & country | Life expectancy, total (years) | Female vs male (years) |
|---|---|---|
| 1Monaco | 86.5 | 88.6 vs 84.6 |
| 2San Marino | 85.8 | 87.2 vs 84.3 |
| 3Hong Kong | 85.6 | 88.3 vs 83.0 |
| 4Japan | 84.8 | 87.9 vs 81.8 |
| 5South Korea | 84.4 | 87.3 vs 81.3 |
| 6Saint Barthelemy | 84.4 | 86.9 vs 81.6 |
| 7French Polynesia | 84.2 | 86.6 vs 81.9 |
| 8Andorra | 84.2 | 86.2 vs 82.3 |
| 9Switzerland | 84.1 | 86.0 vs 82.2 |
| 10Australia | 84.1 | 85.5 vs 82.3 |
| 11Italy | 83.9 | 85.9 vs 81.8 |
| 12Singapore | 83.9 | 86.4 vs 81.4 |
| 13Spain | 83.8 | 86.4 vs 81.1 |
| 14Liechtenstein | 83.8 | 85.4 vs 82.0 |
| 15Reunion | 83.7 | 86.5 vs 80.7 |
| 16Gibraltar | 83.6 | 86.2 vs 81.0 |
| 17Malta | 83.5 | 85.4 vs 81.5 |
| 18France | 83.5 | 86.2 vs 80.6 |
| 19Norway | 83.5 | 85.0 vs 81.9 |
| 20Sweden | 83.4 | 85.2 vs 81.7 |
| 21Guernsey | 83.4 | 85.6 vs 81.2 |
| 22Macau | 83.2 | 85.3 vs 81.0 |
| 23Vatican City | 83.1 | 85.2 vs 81.0 |
| 24United Arab Emirates | 83.1 | 84.3 vs 82.2 |
| 25Iceland | 83.0 | 84.5 vs 81.6 |
| 26Martinique | 82.7 | 85.7 vs 79.5 |
| 27Israel | 82.7 | 84.7 vs 80.7 |
| 28Canada | 82.7 | 84.9 vs 80.5 |
| 29Ireland | 82.6 | 84.6 vs 80.6 |
| 30Portugal | 82.5 | 85.3 vs 79.7 |
| 31Qatar | 82.5 | 83.5 vs 81.8 |
| 32Bermuda | 82.5 | 85.9 vs 79.1 |
| 33Luxembourg | 82.4 | 83.9 vs 80.8 |
| 34Netherlands | 82.3 | 83.8 vs 80.7 |
| 35Belgium | 82.3 | 84.5 vs 80.1 |
| 36New Zealand | 82.2 | 83.9 vs 80.6 |
| 37Guadeloupe | 82.2 | 85.7 vs 78.3 |
| 38Austria | 82.1 | 84.5 vs 79.8 |
| 39Denmark | 82.1 | 84.0 vs 80.2 |
| 40Finland | 82.1 | 84.8 vs 79.4 |
| 41Greece | 82.0 | 84.5 vs 79.5 |
| 42Puerto Rico | 81.9 | 85.4 vs 78.3 |
| 43Cyprus | 81.8 | 83.8 vs 79.8 |
| 44Slovenia | 81.8 | 84.5 vs 79.1 |
| 45Germany | 81.5 | 83.9 vs 79.2 |
| 46United Kingdom | 81.5 | 83.3 vs 79.5 |
| 47Bahrain | 81.4 | 82.1 vs 80.8 |
| 48Chile | 81.4 | 83.2 vs 79.5 |
| 49Maldives | 81.3 | 83.0 vs 80.0 |
| 50Isle of Man | 81.1 | 83.2 vs 79.0 |
| 51Costa Rica | 81.0 | 83.6 vs 78.4 |
| 52Kuwait | 80.6 | 82.0 vs 79.5 |
| 53Cayman Islands | 80.5 | 83.0 vs 78.2 |
| 54Saint Martin | 80.4 | 84.0 vs 77.0 |
| 55Faroe Islands | 80.4 | 82.7 vs 78.4 |
| 56Oman | 80.3 | 82.0 vs 78.7 |
| 57Czechia | 80.0 | 82.8 vs 77.2 |
| 58Jersey | 79.8 | 81.9 vs 77.9 |
| 59Albania | 79.8 | 81.6 vs 77.9 |
| 60Panama | 79.8 | 82.7 vs 76.9 |
| 61Anguilla | 79.5 | 82.8 vs 76.2 |
| 62United States | 79.5 | 82.0 vs 77.0 |
| 63Falkland Islands | 79.4 | 81.3 vs 77.4 |
| 64Estonia | 79.3 | 83.2 vs 75.1 |
| 65Saudi Arabia | 79.0 | 81.3 vs 77.3 |
| 66Northern Mariana Islands | 79.0 | 80.9 vs 77.3 |
| 67New Caledonia | 78.9 | 81.4 vs 76.5 |
| 68Poland | 78.8 | 82.5 vs 75.1 |
| 69Croatia | 78.8 | 81.8 vs 75.6 |
| 70Slovakia | 78.5 | 81.7 vs 75.2 |
| 71Uruguay | 78.3 | 82.0 vs 74.4 |
| 72Cuba | 78.3 | 80.7 vs 75.9 |
| 73Turks and Caicos Islands | 78.2 | 80.5 vs 76.0 |
| 74Bosnia and Herzegovina | 78.0 | 81.1 vs 74.7 |
| 75China | 78.0 | 81.0 vs 75.3 |
| 76Jordan | 78.0 | 80.3 vs 75.9 |
| 77Lebanon | 78.0 | 79.9 vs 75.9 |
| 78Peru | 77.9 | 80.3 vs 75.6 |
| 79Colombia | 77.9 | 80.6 vs 75.2 |
| 80Iran | 77.8 | 79.8 vs 76.0 |
| 81Antigua and Barbuda | 77.8 | 80.5 vs 74.7 |
| 82Sri Lanka | 77.7 | 80.8 vs 74.5 |
| 83Ecuador | 77.6 | 80.3 vs 74.9 |
| 84Argentina | 77.5 | 80.0 vs 75.0 |
| 85North Macedonia | 77.5 | 79.7 vs 75.3 |
| 86British Virgin Islands | 77.4 | 80.2 vs 74.7 |
| 87Turkey | 77.4 | 80.3 vs 74.6 |
| 88Guam | 77.4 | 81.6 vs 73.7 |
| 89Montenegro | 77.3 | 80.5 vs 73.9 |
| 90Hungary | 77.2 | 80.3 vs 73.9 |
| 91French Guiana | 77.2 | 80.2 vs 74.3 |
| 92Tokelau | 77.2 | 79.0 vs 75.1 |
| 93Curacao | 77.0 | 81.0 vs 72.7 |
| 94Serbia | 76.9 | 80.2 vs 73.7 |
| 95Saint Pierre and Miquelon | 76.9 | 81.6 vs 73.0 |
| 96Malaysia | 76.8 | 79.5 vs 74.5 |
| 97Tunisia | 76.7 | 79.3 vs 74.1 |
| 98Thailand | 76.6 | 81.0 vs 72.3 |
| 99Sint Maarten | 76.5 | 79.7 vs 73.8 |
| 100Aruba | 76.5 | 78.9 vs 73.8 |
Notes: life expectancy at birth in years, rounded to one decimal place. “Female vs male” shows the UN 2024 estimates by sex; the gender gap can be read as the difference between the two values. Small territories are included when UN/World Bank publish separate series.
Life expectancy and health spending: a strong, but imperfect, correlation
Higher health expenditure per capita is generally associated with longer lives: countries that invest more — particularly in primary care, prevention and financial protection — tend to achieve lower mortality at most ages. But the relationship is not linear. Some systems convert spending into health much more efficiently than others.
The scatter plot below compares life expectancy with total health spending per person (PPP, international dollars) for a selection of large economies and widely cited health systems. The United States stands out as a country with very high spending but weaker life-expectancy outcomes than several peers, while places like South Korea, Spain and Japan achieve very high life expectancy with substantially lower spending levels.
Figure 2. Life expectancy at birth (UN WPP 2024, years) vs total health expenditure per capita (WHO/World Bank/OECD benchmark values, PPP international dollars, latest 2022–2023 observations). Spending values are rounded to broad bands and used for comparative illustration only.
What this life expectancy ranking means for policy and societies
The 2025 life expectancy ranking summarises decades of demographic and health transitions. Countries clustered at the top have broadly achieved two things: they have made premature death rare and pushed most mortality into relatively old ages. This is the result of long-running investments in maternal and child health, cardiovascular prevention, cancer screening and treatment, safer transport and workplaces, and broad financial access to care.
The Top 100 table also shows that many upper-middle-income countries now attain life expectancy in the high 70s or low 80s, despite having far lower health spending per person than the richest OECD members. Their challenge is to avoid stagnation: as non-communicable diseases, obesity, and mental-health burdens rise, gains from basic infectious-disease control are no longer enough on their own to push life expectancy higher.
On the other side, some high-spending systems struggle to translate resources into longer lives. The United States is the clearest example: per-capita health expenditure is far above the OECD average, yet life expectancy still trails many European and Asian peers. The scatter plot in Part 2 shows that system design, prevention and equity matter as much as the spending level itself.
- Spending is necessary, but not sufficient. Countries that combine higher per-capita health expenditure with strong primary care, clear benefits packages, and financial protection see the biggest longevity gains.
- Prevention across the life course matters. Long-lived countries intervene early: vaccination, tobacco and alcohol control, cardiovascular risk management and road safety all translate into fewer deaths before age 70.
- Gender gaps remain substantial. In most Top 100 countries women live several years longer than men, driven by differences in injuries, cardiovascular disease, and risk behaviours. Men’s health needs to be addressed explicitly in policy design.
- Shocks can erase years of progress. COVID-19, opioid crises and “deaths of despair” show that life expectancy can fall sharply when health systems and social protections are weak.
- Life expectancy is a bridge indicator. It connects to many other StatRanker metrics: health expenditure per capita, health expenditure as a share of GDP, quality of care, income inequality, and labour-market conditions. No single policy lever explains the ranking on its own.
This ranking is intended for comparative analysis. For programme design or evaluation, policymakers should always consult underlying micro-data, national vital statistics, and cause-of-death patterns rather than relying on headline life expectancy alone.
-
UN World Population Prospects 2024 – Life expectancy at birth.
Country-level series of life expectancy at birth (total, female, male) used to derive
the 2025 ranking and gender breakdowns.
https://population.un.org/wpp/ -
World Bank World Development Indicators – Life expectancy indicators.
Cross-country database including “Life expectancy at birth, total (years)” and the
corresponding male/female series used for consistency checks.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN -
WorldPopulationReview – Life Expectancy by Country 2025. Public compiled table of UN 2024 life expectancy estimates by country and territory (total, female, male), used here as a practical territory-inclusive comparison table alongside the primary UN source.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/life-expectancy-by-country -
WHO Global Health Expenditure Database / World Bank – Total health spending per person.
PPP-adjusted health expenditure per capita used to position countries in the scatter chart
(Figure 2), with values rounded to broad bands.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PP.CD -
Our World in Data – Total health spending per person.
Processed series combining WHO and World Bank data for international comparison of health
expenditure per capita (current international dollars, PPP).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-healthcare-expenditure-per-capita -
OECD Health at a Glance 2025 – Health expenditure per capita.
Detailed benchmark of OECD countries’ per-capita health spending, used to validate spending
levels for high-income economies in Figure 2.
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025
Updated: 20 April 2026. The ranking itself is based on the UN 2024 revision and presented as a 2025 view. Supporting health-spending figures come from the latest widely comparable observations, typically 2022–2023. Small discrepancies between public tables are still possible, especially for small territories, because different sources do not always display territory-level coverage in exactly the same way. Even so, the overall structure of the Top 100 remains stable.
