Skip to content

Data & Ratings · Edition 2026

The 2026 rankings, in full.

Every assessed government, its overall score, its four pillar sub-scores and its movement since the previous edition. Sort any column, or select a government on the map.

The 2026 Index

190 governments, one comparable measure.

Select a government on the map, in the table, or from the list. All three present the same assessment and update together.

Drag to rotate. Arrow keys also rotate. Select a territory to view its assessment.

Lower Higher
Top twenty-four governments by overall score, 2026 edition.
Rank Government Score YoY
Loading the assessment…

All 190 governments and pillar scores →

Global AI Index synthesis methodology. Scores are produced by the Index from publicly available data, normalized to a common 0–100 scale and aggregated across four equally weighted pillars. Synthesis current as of . Full derivation, sources and indicator weights are set out in the methodology.

Rankings

The 2026 table.

View all 190 governments →

Top twelve of 190 assessed governments. Pillar scores are 0–100. Illustrative data — replace before publication.
Rank Government Region Overall Institutional Technical Human Governance YoY
1 Singapore East Asia 82.4 85.1 84.0 79.8 80.7 0
2 United States North America 81.9 78.4 92.6 83.1 73.5 +1
3 United Kingdom Western Europe 79.6 81.0 78.2 80.9 78.3 −1
4 Denmark Western Europe 78.8 82.7 74.1 77.5 80.9 +2
5 Republic of Korea East Asia 78.1 76.9 85.3 76.2 74.0 +3
6 Canada North America 77.5 75.8 76.0 81.4 76.8 −2
7 Estonia Eastern Europe 76.9 84.2 69.7 74.3 79.4 +4
8 Netherlands Western Europe 76.2 77.1 74.9 75.8 77.0 0
9 United Arab Emirates Middle East and North Africa 75.4 79.6 80.1 71.2 70.7 +5
10 Germany Western Europe 74.8 72.3 76.4 77.9 72.6 −3
11 Japan East Asia 74.1 71.5 79.2 75.6 70.1 +1
12 Australia Pacific 73.6 74.8 70.3 76.1 73.2 −1

Regional analysis

Where the movement is.

Regional median 71.2 · 3 governments assessed

The region retains the highest technical-foundations scores in the Index, driven by compute availability and a research base that departments can draw on directly. Institutional scores are more uneven: federal structures make a single accountable owner harder to identify, and sub-national deployment often runs ahead of central oversight.

Full regional chapter →

Discuss the 2026 findings with the research team.

Methodology questions, indicator-level data requests, briefings for policy and executive audiences, and media inquiries are handled directly by the assessment team.

Contact the research team