GAID

Global Alliance for
ICT and Development

Top100 Smart Cities

How does our rating differ from others?

📊 Methodology: How We Ranked the Top Cities Under 1 Million

 

The Future of Urban Living

In an era where remote work has untethered millions from traditional offices, choosing the right city is no longer simply about lifestyle—it’s a strategic decision. As digital nomadism shifts from a fleeting trend to a durable global movement, cities everywhere are competing to attract this new class of mobile professionals.

 

Yet most global rankings keep circling the same handful of megacities—New York, Vienna, London—shuffling them up or down a spot depending on the metric. Meanwhile, the real future of urban living may belong elsewhere.

 

At the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID), we believe that the next chapter in remote work will be written not in sprawling metropolises, but in small and medium-sized cities that combine adaptability, affordability, and a high quality of life. These are places where residents can still breathe clean air, build close-knit communities, and take part in vibrant cultural ecosystems without the strains of overcrowding or sky-high costs.

 

So we set out to systematically identify cities under one million residents that stand out for digital professionals seeking flexibility, opportunity, and digital readiness. Our methodology blends rigorous quantitative analysis with a human-centered lens on what makes a city not only livable, but genuinely future-ready.

 

Why This Rating Matters

  • Economic and Social Impact: Digital nomads inject spending directly into local economies, fueling small business growth, stimulating housing markets, and supporting local services. Many also become long-term investors—buying property, opening companies, or fostering new startups.
  • Cultural Exchange & Innovation: By integrating into local communities, remote workers bring fresh ideas and global networks, fostering knowledge transfer and enriching cultural life.
  • Rising Global Competition: Countries and cities alike now vie to attract this valuable demographic with tailored visa schemes, co-working ecosystems, and smart infrastructure—understanding that tomorrow’s economic dynamism will flow to places that embrace remote work.
  • A Data-Driven Perspective: Unlike typical lifestyle blogs or influencer “top 10” lists, our study grounds recommendations in verifiable, globally comparable data—offering a practical roadmap for nomads, investors, and policymakers alike.

Informed Choices for a Mobile Future

Our aim is twofold: to give digital nomads, entrepreneurs, and remote workers a clear, data-driven view of where they can confidently build their next chapter, while also offering city leaders and policymakers an objective snapshot of their city’s standing in the global landscape. In this way, we highlight both strengths and areas for growth, providing a strategic guide for attracting and supporting the mobile talent driving the future of work.

 

10 Key Dimensions

To capture the full spectrum of factors that matter most to remote professionals, we structured our assessment around 10 weighted dimensions, reflecting both practical needs and lifestyle aspirations:

 

Metric

Weight

💸 Cost of Living

20%

🌐 Internet Speed & Quality

20%

🛡️ Safety

15%

🌤️ Climate

10%

🎭 Culture & Leisure

10%

🤝 Digital Nomad Community

10%

🏥 Healthcare

5%

🚇 Transport Infrastructure

5%

🛂 Visa & Legal Conditions

3%

🗣️ Language Accessibility

2%

 

This weighting ensures that essential enablers for work (like connectivity and safety) carry the highest influence, balanced with quality-of-life elements (like culture, climate, and healthcare) that shape a fulfilling remote lifestyle.

 

Comprehensive Data Collection

We anchored our analysis in globally recognized data sources, prioritizing transparency and comparability across cities. Each dimension drew from tailored datasets, such as:

  • Cost of Living: Numbeo, Expatistan — crowd-sourced and benchmarked data on everyday expenses.
  • Internet Quality: Speedtest Global Index by Ookla — real-world user speed tests.
  • Safety: Numbeo’s crime indices and local police statistics.
  • Climate: NOAA and World Weather Online — objective climate patterns.
  • Culture & Leisure: TripAdvisor plus official tourism boards for local venues and events.
  • Digital Nomad Community: Nomad List and Meetup trends.
  • Healthcare: WHO indicators and local hospital profiles.
  • Transport: municipal transport authority reports and Google Maps infrastructure layers.
  • Visa Conditions: official government portals for digital nomad visas and residency rules.
  • Language: Ethnologic profiles and listings of language education centers.

By combining these datasets, we built a robust, multi-dimensional profile of each candidate city.

Scoring and Normalization

Each city was evaluated across all 10 parameters using a standardized scale from 0 to 100, with 100 representing optimal conditions for remote living. This process included normalizing data to account for differences in measurement units (e.g., internet Mbps vs. safety crime scores).

 

For instance:

  • A city with excellent broadband speeds would score close to 100 on Internet Quality.
  • A city with high crime indices would receive a proportionately lower Safety score.

 

Applying Weighted Aggregation

We then calculated an overall composite score using our predetermined weights. The formula:

Overall Score=∑(Parameter Score×Parameter Weight)\text{Overall Score} = \sum (\text{Parameter Score} \times \text{Parameter Weight})Overall Score=∑(Parameter Score×Parameter Weight)

For example, if a city scored:

  • 80 in Cost of Living
  • 90 in Internet Speed
  • 70 in Climate
  • 85 in Safety
  • 60 in Culture & Leisure
  • 75 in Digital Nomad Community
  • 50 in Healthcare
  • 55 in Transport
  • 45 in Visa Conditions
  • 40 in Language

Then the aggregate score would be:

(80×0.20)+(90×0.20)+(70×0.10)+(85×0.15)+(60×0.10)+(75×0.10)+(50×0.05)+(55×0.05)+(45×0.03)+(40×0.02)=74.65(80 \times 0.20) + (90 \times 0.20) + (70 \times 0.10) + (85 \times 0.15) + (60 \times 0.10) + (75 \times 0.10) + (50 \times 0.05) + (55 \times 0.05) + (45 \times 0.03) + (40 \times 0.02) = 74.65(80×0.20)+(90×0.20)+(70×0.10)+(85×0.15)+(60×0.10)+(75×0.10)+(50×0.05)+(55×0.05)+(45×0.03)+(40×0.02)=74.65

 

Generating the Rankings

After calculating composite scores for each city, we ranked them from highest to lowest. This final list highlights which smaller urban centers offer the most holistic, opportunity-rich environments for digital nomads and remote professionals.

 

A Methodology Rooted in Practical Insight

This approach stands apart from superficial “best cities” lists by grounding the analysis in metrics that directly impact remote working and living. It reflects how modern professionals actually weigh trade-offs — prioritizing connectivity and affordability, but also seeking safety, culture, and supportive local communities.

 

A Call for City Leaders

We understand that no two cities are alike — especially when it comes to scale. Our next global will not only explore regional strengths, but further differentiate cities by population tiers. This approach ensures fair, meaningful comparisons that recognize the distinct challenges and opportunities cities face at different sizes.

We invite city leaders, municipal agencies, and local investment boards to actively participate in this initiative. By providing data through our structured questionnaires, your city can be featured in our upcoming rankings — gaining a clear, data-backed perspective on how it stands globally among true peers.

Rank City Country Rating
1 Wellington New Zealand 76.9
2 Edinburgh Scotland 76.65
3 Boulder, Colorado USA 75.4
4 Asheville, North Carolina USA 73.3
5 Bruges Belgium 72.55
6 Reykjavik Iceland 71.1
7 Hobart Australia 70.8
8 Victoria Canada 70.7
9 Galway Ireland 70.35
10 Ljubljana Slovenia 69.8
11 Innsbruck Austria 69.55
12 La Paz Mexico 68.35
13 Burlington Vermont 68.3
14 Maastricht Netherlands 68.2
15 San Sebastian Spain 67.4
16 Gothenburg Sweden 67.2
17 Freiburg Germany 67.05
18 Girona Spain 66.45
19 Trondheim Norway 66.4
20 Antibes France 65.95
21 Heidelberg Germany 65.7
22 Stavanger Norway 65.1
23 Bergen Norway 64.9
24 Split Croatia 64.45
25 Thun Switzerland 64.35
26 Bilbao Spain 64.25
27 Tirana Albania 64.1
28 Lucerne Switzerland 63.95
29 Aix-en-Provence France 63.95
30 Ghent Belgium 63.45
31 Cambridge UK 62.95
32 Zurich Switzerland 62.85
33 Graz Austria 62.75
34 Lausanne Switzerland 62.7
35 Batumi Georgian 62.6
36 Poznan Poland 62.5
37 Turin Italy 62.5
38 Cork Ireland 62.25
39 Christchurch New Zealand 62
40 Grenoble France 62
41 Mérida Mexico 61.85
42 Sibiu Romania 61.5
43 Funchal Portugal 61.25
44 Bend USA 60.75
45 Timișoara Romania 60.5
46 Cuenca Ecuador 60.15
47 Aarhus Denmark 60.15
48 Lviv Ukraine 60
49 Padua Italy 59.85
50 Cluj-Napoca Romania 59.75
51 Brighton UK 59.75
52 Nantes France 59.75
53 Oulu Finland 59.75
54 Savannah USA 59.5
55 Salzburg Austria 59.5
56 Granada Spain 59.5
57 Limerick Ireland 58.45
58 Glasgow Scotland 58.45
59 Leipzig Germany 58.45
60 Seville Spain 58.45
61 Brasov Romania 58.15
62 Lisbon Portugal 58.15
63 Manchester U K 58.15
64 Florence Italy 57.65
65 Bologna Italy 57.65
66 Bratislava Slovakia 57.65
67 Luxembourg City Luxembourg 57.3
68 Cardiff U K 57.3
69 Thessaloniki Greece 57.3
70 Eindhoven Netherlands 57.3
71 Alicante Spain 57.3
72 Malmö Sweden 56.65
73 Plovdiv Bulgaria 56.55
74 Linz Austria 56.55
75 Nuremberg Germany 56.55
76 Bristol U K 56.35
77 Nijmegen Netherlands 56.35
78 Leuven Belgium 56.35
79 Dundee U K 56.35
80 Reggio Emilia Italy 55.35
81 Hanover Germany 55.25
82 Ulm Germany 55.25
83 Bonn Germany 55.25
84 Bergamo Italy 55.2
85 Augsburg Germany 55.2
86 Trieste Italy 55.2
87 Lyon France 55.2
88 Utrecht Netherlands 54.95
89 Toulouse France 54.95
90 Leicester U K 53.95
91 Groningen Netherlands 53.95
92 Bern Switzerland 53.85
93 Trier Germany 53.6
94 Bath U K 53.35
95 Oxford U K 53.35
96 Durham U K 52.45
97 Vicenza Italy 51.95
98 Aalborg Denmark 51.95
99 Erfurt Germany 50.95
100 Salamanca Spain 49.6