2026-04-30 01:47:57
See more visuals like this on the Voronoi app.
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
For the first time since the late 1920s, the U.S. is spending more on interest payments than on national defense.
That shift marks a turning point in federal priorities. As debt levels climb and borrowing costs rise, interest payments are taking up a growing share of the budget—projected to hit $2.1 trillion by 2036, far outpacing defense spending.
This chart compares annual U.S. net interest payments and defense outlays from 1996 to 2036, based on data from the White House and projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as of February 2026.
In 2024, U.S. interest payments reached $879.9 billion, surpassing defense spending of $850.7 billion.
Projections through 2036 show interest payments continuing to pull ahead, even as defense spending rises.
The table below shows how annual U.S. net interest payments and defense spending changed from 1996 to 2025, along with projections from 2026 to 2036:
| Year | U.S. Annual Net Interest Payments (billions) | U.S. Annual Defense Spending (billions) |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | $241.1 | $266.0 |
| 1997 | $244.0 | $271.7 |
| 1998 | $241.1 | $270.2 |
| 1999 | $229.8 | $275.5 |
| 2000 | $222.9 | $295.0 |
| 2001 | $206.2 | $306.1 |
| 2002 | $170.9 | $349.0 |
| 2003 | $153.1 | $404.9 |
| 2004 | $160.2 | $454.1 |
| 2005 | $184.0 | $493.6 |
| 2006 | $226.6 | $520.0 |
| 2007 | $237.1 | $547.9 |
| 2008 | $252.8 | $612.4 |
| 2009 | $186.9 | $656.7 |
| 2010 | $196.2 | $688.9 |
| 2011 | $230.0 | $699.4 |
| 2012 | $220.4 | $670.5 |
| 2013 | $220.9 | $625.8 |
| 2014 | $229.0 | $596.4 |
| 2015 | $223.2 | $583.4 |
| 2016 | $240.0 | $584.8 |
| 2017 | $262.6 | $590.2 |
| 2018 | $325.0 | $622.7 |
| 2019 | $375.2 | $676.4 |
| 2020 | $345.5 | $713.8 |
| 2021 | $352.3 | $741.6 |
| 2022 | $475.9 | $752.1 |
| 2023 | $658.3 | $806.2 |
| 2024 | $879.9 | $850.7 |
| 2025 | $970.0 | $893.0 |
| 2026P | $1,039.0 | $885.0 |
| 2027P | $1,108.0 | $901.0 |
| 2028P | $1,218.0 | $928.0 |
| 2029P | $1,324.0 | $938.0 |
| 2030P | $1,432.0 | $966.0 |
| 2031P | $1,548.0 | $986.0 |
| 2032P | $1,670.0 | $1,006.0 |
| 2033P | $1,784.0 | $1,034.0 |
| 2034P | $1,904.0 | $1,051.0 |
| 2035P | $2,019.0 | $1,068.0 |
| 2036P | $2,144.0 | $1,100.0 |
Between 1996 and 2001, U.S. defense spending averaged about 30% higher than net interest costs, as falling interest rates and budget surpluses kept debt servicing relatively low.
That gap widened sharply after 9/11. Military spending doubled over the following decade, reaching $699 billion in 2011, while interest costs rose more slowly to $230 billion.
During the low-interest-rate era of the 2010s, borrowing costs stayed low even as federal debt nearly doubled—from $9.0 trillion in 2010 to $16.8 trillion in 2019—masking the long-term cost of that debt.
After COVID-19, that dynamic reversed. A surge in borrowing combined with higher interest rates pushed debt servicing costs sharply higher, with net interest outlays nearly tripling to $970 billion by 2025.
At a projected $1.0 trillion in 2026, America’s net interest bill is set to become the fastest-growing major budget item.
By 2036, net interest outlays will more than double to $2.1 trillion, while defense spending is projected to reach $1.1 trillion.
If current projections hold, the U.S. will spend far more on servicing its debt than on national defense within a decade, raising questions about how future budgets will balance economic stability, security, and growth.
This crossover isn’t just symbolic. It marks a fundamental shift in how the U.S. allocates its resources—toward servicing past borrowing rather than funding current priorities.
As interest costs rise, a growing share of federal spending is effectively locked in, reducing flexibility for areas like defense, infrastructure, and research. Over time, this can crowd out new investments and make it harder for policymakers to respond to economic downturns or emerging challenges.
In other words, higher interest payments don’t just reflect rising debt—they actively shape what the government can afford to do next.
To learn more about which NATO countries dominate defense spending, check out this graphic, which visualizes NATO countries by their estimated defense spending.
2026-04-29 23:33:00
Commodity price spikes historically capture mass attention, but few have drawn as many eyes as gold. The metal has been on a record-setting bull run, making it a persistent topic of interest since at least 2023.
The historic, multi-year price rally raises an important consideration: how investors choose to access gold can significantly impact their returns. There are several different paths to gold investment, each with its own costs and benefits that shape overall performance.
This graphic, in partnership with BullionVault, shows the key cost factors that impact gold returns.
Every gold investment starts as a 400-troy-ounce wholesale bar. From this foundation, investors have three options, each with a distinct cost structure that can affect returns over time. They are:
Retail and wholesale investments allow for physical ownership of gold with the decision-making power over where and how the gold is held. In contrast, ETFs offer investors shares in a trust to gain easy access and exposure to the price of gold.
Across all methods, three key factors shape returns: price premiums, storage and insurance costs, and ongoing management fees.
Every gold investment includes a premium, regardless of the path taken. This premium comes from two factors: the price spread and trading costs.
The price spread indicates the percentage gap between gold’s buy and sell price. It captures real-world costs like minting, shipping and delivery, and dealer markups.
Trading costs are the commissions and trading platform access fees, as a percentage of trade value. Together, these premiums determine how much value investors retain when entering or exiting a position.
Here is a table that shows how spreads and trading fees compare across different gold investment methods, using a baseline $10K investment.
| Form | Cost |
|---|---|
| Coins | $800 |
| Bars | $500 |
| BullionVault | $115 |
| ETF | $50 |
| Investment Value | $10,000 |
Source: Daily Gold Price; ETF.com; BullionVault.
Minimizing these combined costs can help investors retain more capital when seeking gold exposure.
Where gold is kept directly affects the cost, security, and value of the investment. Storage options include homes with or without a safe, bank deposit boxes, and professional vaults.
This table shows what first-year storage costs can look like across methods using a $10K baseline:
| Storage Option | Cost |
|---|---|
| Basic home safe | $1,985 |
| Safety deposit box | $1,125 |
| BullionVault | $48 |
| ETF | $32 |
| Investment Value | $10,000 |
Source: London Gold Exchange & BullionVault.
While home storage offers full control, it often requires additional spending on a safe and insurance. Bank deposit boxes may limit access and exclude insurance coverage.
Meanwhile, ETFs remove storage concerns but also eliminate ownership benefits, while charging expense ratios to cover the operating and management fees of the fund. In contrast, professional vaults can offer lower costs and stronger security through institutional-scale infrastructure.
Platforms like BullionVault, provide access to these vaults, passing on lower costs and economies of scale to individual investors.
Across most metrics, ETFs often appear cheaper at the start, but their cost advantage can change as investments frow. Ongoing fees, though small, can compound and reduce returns over time.
The table below compares the weighted average monthly cost of ETF ownership with BullionVault’s monthly costs.
| Investment Value | BV Storage Fee /Month | US Weighted Avg ETF (0.32%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1000 | 4.00 | 0.27 |
| 5000 | 4.00 | 1.33 |
| 10000 | 4.00 | 2.67 |
| 15000 | 4.00 | 4.00 |
| 20000 | 4.00 | 5.33 |
| 25000 | 4.00 | 6.67 |
| 30000 | 4.00 | 8.00 |
| 35000 | 4.00 | 9.33 |
| 40000 | 4.00 | 10.67 |
| 45000 | 4.50 | 12.00 |
| 50000 | 5.00 | 13.33 |
| 55000 | 5.50 | 14.67 |
| 60000 | 6.00 | 16.00 |
| 65000 | 6.50 | 17.33 |
| 70000 | 7.00 | 18.67 |
| 75000 | 7.50 | 20.00 |
| 80000 | 8.00 | 21.33 |
| 85000 | 8.50 | 22.67 |
| 90000 | 9.00 | 24.00 |
| 95000 | 9.50 | 25.33 |
| 100000 | 10.00 | 26.67 |
| Fee as a % of investment value | 0.01% ($4 minimum) | 0.32% |
Source: BullionVault. *Average weighting based on each ETF’s gold holdings.
Based on this structure, once an investment exceeds $15K worth of gold, BullionVault can become more cost-efficient than the average U.S. ETF.
Ultimately, investors that reduce trading, storage, and management fees can retain more of gold’s value. BullionVault offers an easier way to buy, store and sell physical gold at wholesale prices, with access to five professional-market vaults worldwide.
Gold or Stocks? See how $10K since 2000 grew, and why gold leads on wealth preservation.
Central bank gold buying has reshaped the market over the past decade. This piece charts the trend and spotlights 2025’s leading buyers—and why it matters.
2026-04-29 22:22:48
See more visualizations like this on the Voronoi app.
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
The Ivy League is often shorthand for elite higher education in the U.S., but many of America’s highest-ranked universities sit outside that group.
Two non-Ivy schools, MIT and Stanford, rank ahead of every Ivy League university in the 2026 QS World University Rankings.
This graphic ranks the top 25 non-Ivy League universities in the U.S. using 2026 data from QS World University Rankings, which scores universities based on academic reputation, research, employability, sustainability, and global engagement.
MIT and Stanford are the clearest examples of how U.S. academic prestige extends beyond the Ivy League. Both rank ahead of every Ivy League university in the 2026 QS World University Rankings, with MIT earning a perfect score of 100 and Stanford scoring 98.9.
The following data table lists non-Ivy League universities in the U.S. alongside their QS score for 2026.
| Rank | University | State | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MIT | Massachussetts | 100 |
| 2 | Stanford University | California | 98.9 |
| 3 | Caltech | California | 94.3 |
| 4 | University of Chicago | Illinois | 93 |
| 5 | UC Berkeley | California | 91.2 |
| 6 | Johns Hopkins | Maryland | 89.7 |
| 7 | Northwestern University | Illinois | 85.1 |
| 8 | University of Michigan-Ann Arbor | Michigan | 84.7 |
| 9 | UCLA | California | 84.4 |
| 10 | Carnegie Mellon University | Pennsylvania | 82.3 |
| 11 | New York University | New York | 81.1 |
| 12 | Duke University | North Carolina | 79 |
| 13 | UC San Diego | California | 76.9 |
| 14 | UT Austin | Texas | 76.4 |
| 15 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign | Illinois | 75.9 |
| 16 | University of Washington | Washington | 72.7 |
| 17 | Pennsylvania State University | Pennsylvania | 72.6 |
| 18 | Boston University | Massachussetts | 71.1 |
| 18 | Purdue University | Indiana | 71.1 |
| 20 | University of Wisconsin-Madison | Wisconsin | 66.6 |
| 21 | UC Davis | California | 66.3 |
| 22 | Rice University | Texas | 65.7 |
| 23 | Georgia Institute of Technology | Georgia | 65.5 |
| 24 | UNC Chapel Hill | North Carolina | 63.2 |
| 25 | Texas A&M | Texas | 63 |
Decades of academic excellence have turned MIT and Stanford into intellectual centers that power their regions. More than 100 MIT alumni have gone on to win the Nobel Prize, and the university is best known for its contributions to engineering, science, and technology.
Meanwhile, Stanford played a key role in the mid-20th-century creation of Silicon Valley in the Bay Area. Its alumni include the presidents of six countries and multiple Supreme Court justices.
California has the strongest showing of any state in the ranking, led by Stanford, Caltech, UC Berkeley, and UCLA. This concentration reflects the state’s mix of private research powerhouses and major public universities.
The UC system spans 10 campuses across the state and serves roughly 300,000 students. In addition to UC Berkeley, the Los Angeles (84.4), San Diego (76.9), and Davis (66.3) campuses are also world-renowned for their academic rigor and contributions to both STEM fields and the social sciences.
Alongside high-research universities like Caltech, the UC system has helped shape California’s reputation as a center of intellectual rigor and entrepreneurship.
While regions west of the Mississippi River have relatively few leading universities outside of Texas, Illinois anchors another hub of major non-Ivy colleges, especially around its largest city.
The University of Chicago (93) is the fourth-best non-Ivy school in the country. Founded by John D. Rockefeller in 1890, it served throughout the 20th century as a key center for law, nuclear research, chemistry, and political economy. Meanwhile, Northwestern University (85.1), located in the Chicago suburb of Evanston, counts nearly 50 Pulitzer Prize winners among its alumni.
Outside the Chicago area, the Midwest is home to leading universities such as the University of Michigan (84.7), Purdue University (71.1), and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (75.9).
To learn more about this topic, check out the The U.S. Dominates the World University Ranking on Voronoi.
2026-04-29 19:38:42
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Despite rising trade tensions, the world’s largest economies remain deeply dependent on imports to function.
In 2025, the United States remained the world’s top importer, accounting for more than 13% of global goods imports. From energy and raw materials to finished products, global supply chains remain critical to both consumption and industrial output.
This graphic ranks the world’s 30 largest importers using the latest available data from the World Trade Organization.
In 2025, the United States remained the world’s largest importer by a wide margin. The $3.5 trillion imported by the U.S. is nearly a trillion dollars more than second-place China ($2.6 trillion).
The massive surge in U.S. imports from countries like Canada, China, Japan, and Mexico in recent decades has led to Washington running an over $1 trillion trade deficit, larger than any other country. The strong U.S. dollar also makes imports cheaper—reinforcing America’s role as the world’s largest buyer of goods.
This data table lists the world’s top 30 largest importers alongside their total import value in 2025.
| Rank | Country | Value (Billion USD) | Global Share (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
 United States |
3,507 | 13.2 |
| 2 |
 China |
2,583 | 9.7 |
| 3 |
 Germany |
1,543 | 5.8 |
| 4 |
 United Kingdom |
949 | 3.6 |
| 5 |
 Netherlands |
870 | 3.3 |
| 6 |
 Hong Kong |
832 | 3.1 |
| 7 |
 France |
786 | 3.0 |
| 8 |
 Japan |
756 | 2.8 |
| 9 |
 India |
753 | 2.8 |
| 10 |
 Mexico |
683 | 2.6 |
| 11 |
 Italy |
669 | 2.5 |
| 12 |
 South Korea |
632 | 2.4 |
| 13 |
 United Arab Emirates |
619 | 2.3 |
| 14 |
 Canada |
577 | 2.2 |
| 15 |
 Belgium |
538 | 2.0 |
| 16 |
 Spain |
513 | 1.9 |
| 17 |
 Switzerland |
507 | 1.9 |
| 18 |
 Singapore |
506 | 1.9 |
| 19 |
 Taiwan |
494 | 1.9 |
| 20 |
 Vietnam |
454 | 1.7 |
| 21 |
 Poland |
421 | 1.6 |
| 22 |
 Turkey |
365 | 1.4 |
| 23 |
 Thailand |
345 | 1.3 |
| 24 |
 Malaysia |
340 | 1.3 |
| 25 |
 Australia |
311 | 1.2 |
| 26 |
 Russia |
303 | 1.1 |
| 27 |
 Brazil |
294 | 1.1 |
| 28 |
 Saudi Arabia |
254 | 1.0 |
| 29 |
 Czech Republic |
253 | 1.0 |
| 30 |
 Indonesia |
242 | 0.9 |
| -- |
 Top 30 Importers |
21,899 | 82.5 |
Many across the U.S. push for the country to reduce its imports and produce more domestically, particularly in manufacturing. High-value goods such as cars, of which the U.S. imported over $216 billion in 2024, are particular points of tension, as well as products made overseas by U.S. firms like Apple’s iPhones.
However, the reality of international supply chains is that even many locally-made products require different imported input components, from car parts to steel to processors. As a result, trade protectionism in the world’s largest consumer market also has an impact on American manufacturers.
While the U.S. imports primarily finished consumer goods, China’s import profile looks very different—focused heavily on raw materials that power its manufacturing engine.
Primary goods such as iron, oil, and soybeans dominate Chinese imports, although there are also key finished products like semiconductors which are essential for local manufacturing. China maintains a fairly major trade surplus of over $1 trillion, although Beijing does run a deficit with certain large emerging markets like Brazil.
Neighboring Hong Kong also imported over $832 billion worth of goods in 2025, with only $232 billion of these being retained imports for local consumption, contrary to goods which were then reexported.
Germany stands out among major economies: despite its smaller size, it imports far more relative to GDP than either the U.S. or China, reflecting its deep integration into global supply chains.
Germany’s $1.5 trillion in 2025 imports is over half of the Chinese total and over 40% of the total for the far larger U.S. economy. Close trade ties within Europe have made Germany one of the most interconnected economies in global trade.
Meanwhile, the country has long depended on foreign energy imports to power its world-renowned domestic industry.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Global Trade Dominance: U.S., EU, or China (2000 vs. 2024) on Voronoi.Use This Visualization
2026-04-28 23:44:00
Extreme weather, electrification, AI, and data centers are putting more pressure on America’s power grids.
As demand rises, utilities need flexible tools to reduce strain before outages occur. But which states lead on flexibility?
This graphic, in partnership with the National Public Utilities Council, shows the states most prepared for power demand surges using peak potential demand savings data from the EIA.
Demand-response programs help utilities lower electricity use during high-stress periods. For example, customers may reduce consumption or shift usage away from peak hours, often in exchange for compensation.
Here is a table showing potential peak-demand savings in MW by state in 2024.
| State | Potential Peak Demand Savings in 2024 (MW) |
|---|---|
| FL | 3,003 |
| AL | 2,153 |
| MN | 2,009 |
| NC | 1,858 |
| MI | 1,550 |
| SC | 1,324 |
| GA | 1,266 |
| IL | 1,143 |
| NY | 1,070 |
| CA | 1,061 |
| TX | 1,050 |
| AR | 1,024 |
| TN | 991 |
| OK | 869 |
| NE | 857 |
| ND | 854 |
| WI | 830 |
| CO | 795 |
| IA | 759 |
| KY | 732 |
| IN | 671 |
| OH | 668 |
| MD | 613 |
| AZ | 555 |
| MS | 522 |
| ID | 466 |
| UT | 336 |
| MO | 307 |
| LA | 267 |
| DE | 246 |
| NV | 200 |
| SD | 180 |
| OR | 178 |
| VA | 163 |
| KS | 143 |
| CT | 135 |
| MA | 120 |
| WA | 112 |
| VT | 72 |
| NM | 69 |
| HI | 58 |
| MT | 52 |
| PA | 43 |
| WV | 34 |
| NJ | 27 |
| DC | 20 |
| AK | 18 |
| ME | 15 |
| NH | 5 |
| RI | 0 |
| WY | 0 |
Florida ranks first, with 3,003 MW in potential peak demand savings. Alabama follows at 2,153 MW, while Minnesota places third at 2,009 MW.
Together, these states demonstrate how demand-response capacity can buffer the grid during grid stress. Meanwhile, data center power demand continues to rise as AI adoption grows.
Florida and Alabama lead the nation, supported by demand-response programs from utilities including FPL, Duke Energy Florida, Alabama Power, and TVA. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia also rank in the top seven.
As a result, the Southeast stands out for its ability to manage demand spikes. These programs can help utilities avoid outages without adding new generation immediately.
At the other end, Rhode Island and Wyoming report no demand-response capacity. That leaves fewer options to cut demand when electricity use surges.
Several northeastern states, including New Hampshire, Maine, and New Jersey, also report minimal demand-response capacity.
As U.S. electricity demand rises from data center construction after years of slower growth, demand-response programs give utilities an important tool to manage peak stress.
A look at which U.S. power sources run most consistently, and why nuclear remains central as utility demand grows.
Which U.S. states are winning the data center race? This visualization shows the states gaining and losing data center market share in the next two years.
Which states dominate carbon offsets? This U.S. map shows the hotspots as utilities respond to the AI electricity surge.
Just four U.S. utilities operate with over 80% carbon-free generation. This graphic ranks the top 10 cleanest utilities by their fuel mix.
This streamgraph shows projected offshore wind capacity by region, according to The Global Wind Energy Council.
Severe weather caused all ten of the largest U.S. power outages in the past decade, highlighting the importance of grid resiliency.
This treemap chart uses data from Statistical Review of World Energy to show the top 10 countries with the most battery storage capacity in 2023.
This voronoi depicts the countries that capture the most carbon globally in 2023, with data from Rystad Energy.
This bar chart shows the countries’ highest and lowest energy transition index scores determined by the World Economic Forum.
This dumbbell plot shows the most and least expensive sources of energy in the U.S., using data from Lazard.
This infographic shows the greenhouse gas emissions targets of all countries and their target years with data from Net Zero Tracker.
This bar chart shows the varying prices of carbon across different economies around the globe, using data from the World Bank.
This streamgraph shows the growth in renewable energy capacity by country and region since 2000.
From tropical cyclones to severe storms, the number of extreme weather disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion has climbed over time.
What are the most polluted cities in the U.S. according to data from the American Lung Association’s 2024 State of the Air Report?
The U.S. emits about 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases a year. Here’s how these emissions rank by sector.
Can America become carbon-free by 2035? This graphic breaks down the United States’ electricity mix, by state.
This infographic highlights announced coal plant closures in the U.S. and how much power will be affected.
2026-04-28 22:25:45
See visuals like this from many other data creators on our Voronoi app. Download it for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Banks sit at the center of the global financial system, and the assets they hold help move credit, deposits, and liquidity through the economy.
Together, the world’s 50 largest banks hold $101.6 trillion in assets, a total approaching the world’s $111 trillion government debt load in 2025.
This graphic ranks the 50 largest banks in the world by total assets, using data from CompaniesMarketCap as of April 15, 2026. The figures represent each bank’s total assets for the most recent reporting period and include cash and cash equivalents, loans, investments, properties, and equipment.
Chinese banks dominate the top of the ranking. The four largest banks in the world are all Chinese state-owned lenders: ICBC, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, and Bank of China.
Together, those four institutions hold $25.5 trillion, or roughly one-quarter of the $101.6 trillion total of the top 50 banks.
The data table below shows the values of the 50 largest global banks’ assets, along with the country of each bank.
| Rank | Bank | Total Assets (Billions, USD) | Country |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ICBC | $7,300 |
China |
| 2 | Agricultural Bank of China | $6,800 |
China |
| 3 | China Construction Bank | $6,200 |
China |
| 4 | Bank of China | $5,300 |
China |
| 5 | JPMorgan Chase | $4,400 |
United States |
| 6 | Bank of America | $3,400 |
United States |
| 7 | BNP Paribas | $3,300 |
France |
| 8 | HSBC | $3,200 |
United Kingdom |
| 9 | Crédit Agricole | $2,800 |
France |
| 10 | Mitsubishi UFJ Financial | $2,700 |
Japan |
| 11 | Citigroup | $2,700 |
United States |
| 12 | Postal Savings Bank of China | $2,500 |
China |
| 13 | Santander | $2,200 |
Spain |
| 14 | Bank of Communications | $2,200 |
China |
| 15 | Wells Fargo | $2,200 |
United States |
| 16 | Barclays | $2,100 |
United Kingdom |
| 17 | Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group | $2,000 |
Japan |
| 18 | Mizuho Financial Group | $1,900 |
Japan |
| 19 | Société Générale | $1,800 |
France |
| 20 | Goldman Sachs | $1,800 |
United States |
| 21 | CM Bank | $1,800 |
China |
| 22 | Royal Bank Of Canada | $1,700 |
Canada |
| 23 | Deutsche Bank | $1,700 |
Germany |
| 24 | UBS | $1,600 |
Switzerland |
| 25 | Japan Post Bank | $1,600 |
Japan |
| 26 | Toronto Dominion Bank | $1,500 |
Canada |
| 27 | Industrial Bank | $1,500 |
China |
| 28 | Morgan Stanley | $1,400 |
United States |
| 29 | CITIC Bank | $1,400 |
China |
| 30 | Shanghai Pudong Development Bank | $1,400 |
China |
| 31 | Lloyds Banking Group | $1,300 |
United Kingdom |
| 32 | ING | $1,200 |
Netherlands |
| 33 | Intesa Sanpaolo | $1,100 |
Italy |
| 34 | China Minsheng Bank | $1,100 |
China |
| 35 | Scotiabank | $1,100 |
Canada |
| 36 | Schweizerische Nationalbank | $1,100 |
Switzerland |
| 37 | Bank of Montreal | $1,100 |
Canada |
| 38 | UniCredit | $1,000 |
Italy |
| 39 | China Everbright Bank | $1,000 |
China |
| 40 | Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria | $1,000 |
Spain |
| 41 | NatWest Group | $962 |
United Kingdom |
| 42 | Commonwealth Bank | $944 |
Australia |
| 43 | Standard Chartered | $920 |
United Kingdom |
| 44 | State Bank of India | $878 |
India |
| 45 | ANZ Bank | $857 |
Australia |
| 46 | CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) | $832 |
Canada |
| 47 | Ping An Bank | $820 |
China |
| 48 | CaixaBank | $780 |
Spain |
| 49 | Nordea Bank | $769 |
 Finland |
| 50 | DBS Group | $699 |
Singapore |
The U.S. comes next, led by JPMorgan Chase with $4.4 trillion in assets and Bank of America with $3.4 trillion.
The rest of the top 10 is rounded out by three European banks (BNP Paribas, HSBC, Crédit Agricole) and one Japanese lender (Mitsubishi UFJ).
A large part of banks’ assets are cash and liquid assets, partly because regulators require them to withstand market stress and funding pressure.
Asia leads the ranking, holding nearly half of the assets of the world’s 50 largest lenders.
| Region | # of Banks | Average Assets per Bank | Total Assets (USD, Billions) |
|---|---|---|---|
 Asia |
19 | $2,584 | $49,097 |
 Europe |
18 | $1,602 | $28,831 |
 North America |
11 | $2,012 | $22,132 |
|
Other |
2 | $901 | $1,801 |
That dominance is driven overwhelmingly by 13 Chinese banks, which alone account for about 39% of the total.
Europe ranks second, largely on volume rather than scale: it has nearly as many banks on the list as Asia (18 vs. 19), yet those institutions are generally smaller, averaging just $1.6 trillion in assets per bank compared with Asia’s $2.6 trillion.
North America is anchored by six U.S. banks and five Canadian ones, giving the region fewer banks than Europe but larger institutions on average.
To learn about the assets held by central banks, check out this graphic, which visualizes the top 20 central banks by assets.
