2025-10-20 02:08:35
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.
Many people are living longer—but not necessarily healthier—lives.
This visualization ranks countries by the number of years their citizens can expect to live in poor health, calculated as the gap between average life expectancy and health-adjusted life expectancy.
Skip to the second-last section for a full explanation of what health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE) is, and why it matters.
HALE data (for the year 2021) is sourced from the World Bank, via Our World in Data. Average life expectancy is from 2025 estimates UN World Population Prospects.
Together they reveal how disease, disability, and chronic conditions shape the quality—not just the quantity—of our lives.
Oil wealth appears genuinely toxic to health outcomes.
Nearly every Middle Eastern petrostate (Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait) appears in this worst-performers list.
Bahrain (17.4 years), Oman (17.3), Qatar (16.5), and the UAE (15.9) all post sizable gaps despite having robust health-care budgets.
Rank | Country | Region | Years in Poor Health | HALE, 2021 | Average Life Expectancy, 2025 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
Asia | 17.4 | 64.2 | 81.6 |
2 |
![]() |
Asia | 17.3 | 63.2 | 80.5 |
3 |
![]() |
Africa | 16.9 | 47.5 | 64.4 |
4 |
![]() |
Asia | 16.5 | 66.2 | 82.7 |
5 |
![]() |
Africa | 16.3 | 53.1 | 69.4 |
6 |
![]() |
Asia | 16.1 | 50.4 | 66.5 |
7 |
![]() |
Asia | 15.9 | 67.3 | 83.2 |
8 |
![]() |
Northern America | 15.7 | 63.9 | 79.6 |
9 |
![]() |
Southern America | 15.1 | 63.0 | 78.1 |
10 |
![]() |
Asia | 14.9 | 63.2 | 78.1 |
11 |
![]() |
Africa | 14.9 | 52.8 | 67.7 |
12 |
![]() |
Asia | 14.8 | 66.7 | 81.5 |
13 |
![]() |
Southern America | 14.4 | 61.8 | 76.2 |
14 |
![]() |
Asia | 14.4 | 58.1 | 72.5 |
15 |
![]() |
Africa | 14.3 | 49.7 | 64.0 |
16 |
![]() |
Asia | 14.1 | 64.0 | 78.1 |
17 |
![]() |
Europe | 14.0 | 63.7 | 77.7 |
18 |
![]() |
Americas | 14.0 | 61.4 | 75.4 |
19 |
![]() |
Oceania | 13.9 | 57.9 | 71.8 |
20 |
![]() |
Southern America | 13.8 | 67.7 | 81.5 |
21 |
![]() |
Americas | 13.8 | 64.6 | 78.4 |
22 |
![]() |
Africa | 13.8 | 55.4 | 69.2 |
23 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.8 | 64.9 | 78.7 |
24 |
![]() |
Africa | 13.7 | 52.8 | 66.5 |
25 |
![]() |
Africa | 13.7 | 53.0 | 66.7 |
26 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.6 | 68.6 | 82.2 |
27 |
![]() |
Americas | 13.6 | 59.3 | 72.9 |
28 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.6 | 62.4 | 76.0 |
29 |
![]() |
Southern America | 13.6 | 60.3 | 73.9 |
30 |
![]() |
Oceania | 13.6 | 70.6 | 84.2 |
31 |
![]() |
Southern America | 13.6 | 56.8 | 70.4 |
32 |
![]() |
Africa | 13.6 | 44.6 | 58.2 |
33 |
![]() |
Americas | 13.6 | 67.6 | 81.2 |
34 |
![]() |
Asia | 13.6 | 65.6 | 79.2 |
35 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.5 | 70.1 | 83.6 |
36 |
![]() |
Southern America | 13.5 | 65.0 | 78.5 |
37 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.5 | 65.5 | 79.0 |
38 |
![]() |
Southern America | 13.5 | 64.3 | 77.8 |
39 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.4 | 66.7 | 80.1 |
40 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.4 | 70.6 | 84.0 |
41 |
![]() |
Oceania | 13.4 | 57.4 | 70.8 |
42 |
![]() |
Americas | 13.4 | 61.5 | 74.9 |
43 |
![]() |
Africa | 13.4 | 62.3 | 75.7 |
44 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.3 | 61.6 | 74.9 |
45 |
![]() |
Africa | 13.3 | 63.6 | 76.9 |
46 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.3 | 66.7 | 80.0 |
47 |
![]() |
Americas | 13.3 | 68.8 | 82.1 |
48 |
![]() |
Americas | 13.3 | 66.7 | 80.0 |
49 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.2 | 63.9 | 77.1 |
50 |
![]() |
Southern America | 13.2 | 60.9 | 74.1 |
51 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.2 | 65.0 | 78.2 |
52 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.2 | 69.5 | 82.7 |
53 |
![]() |
Americas | 13.2 | 60.0 | 73.2 |
54 |
![]() |
Asia | 13.1 | 61.6 | 74.7 |
55 |
![]() |
Asia | 13.1 | 56.5 | 69.6 |
56 |
![]() |
Oceania | 13.1 | 58.7 | 71.8 |
57 |
![]() |
Northern America | 13.1 | 69.8 | 82.9 |
58 |
![]() |
Southern America | 13.1 | 65.0 | 78.1 |
59 |
![]() |
Asia | 13.1 | 63.9 | 77.0 |
60 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.1 | 71.1 | 84.2 |
61 |
![]() |
Oceania | 13.1 | 53.6 | 66.7 |
62 |
![]() |
Asia | 13.0 | 65.1 | 78.1 |
63 |
![]() |
Africa | 13.0 | 54.7 | 67.7 |
64 |
![]() |
Asia | 13.0 | 67.8 | 80.8 |
65 |
![]() |
Europe | 13.0 | 68.6 | 81.6 |
The lifestyle changes that come with sudden wealth, like sedentary living, processed foods, air conditioning replacing physical activity, seem to create a specific pattern of prolonged morbidity.
The U.S. makes the top 10 as well, the only G7 economy to do. Americans are projected to spend 15.7 of 79.6 expected years in poor health.
Also worth noting is the average life expectancy at birth for all of these aforementioned countries is fairly high. Which means these countries are good at keeping people alive with advanced medical technology.
But they may be failing at keeping them healthy, as if they’ve optimized for extending life rather than living well.
Several sub-Saharan African nations, including Eswatini, Botswana, and Namibia, also record gaps above 14 years.
Unlike the richer Gulf countries, they face this burden alongside much shorter life expectancies, meaning fewer total healthy years.
Latin American countries such as Peru and Brazil post similar gaps, reflecting both higher infant mortalities and higher disease burdens.
These patterns highlight a central challenge for global health: boosting not only how long people live, but how long they live well.
HALE measures how many years a person can expect to live in good health, defined as free from disabling illness or injury.
HALE matters because it fundamentally reframes what we mean by a “successful” life and healthcare system.
Traditional life expectancy tells us how long people live, but HALE tells us how long they live well.
Those “unhealthy years” are extraordinarily expensive. The U.S. healthcare system’s poor HALE performance means they’re essentially running a massive, costly life-support operation for millions of people.
Countries with better HALE ratios spend less on healthcare while achieving better outcomes because they’re preventing problems rather than managing chronic decline.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Highest and Lowest Life Expectancy Around the World on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.
2025-10-19 22:41:24
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.
America’s greenest cities are becoming cleaner, more sustainable, and increasingly urbanized.
This map ranks the 100 largest U.S. cities by their environmental performance across four key categories: environment, transportation, energy sources, and lifestyle and policy. The data for this visualization comes from WalletHub.
California continues to lead the way in green urban planning.
Eight of the top 20 cities in the 2025 ranking are in California, including San Jose (#1), Oakland (#3), Irvine (#4), and San Francisco (#5). These cities have implemented ambitious emissions goals, renewable energy programs, and infrastructure investments to reduce reliance on cars.
Ranked (1-100) | City | Environment | Transportation | Energy Sources | Lifestyle & Policy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | San Jose, CA | 8 | 18 | 9 | 25 |
2 | Washington, DC | 14 | 7 | 13 | 8 |
3 | Oakland, CA | 15 | 25 | 8 | 6 |
4 | Irvine, CA | 4 | 41 | 1 | 11 |
5 | San Francisco, CA | 27 | 5 | 21 | 3 |
6 | Honolulu, HI | 2 | 10 | 32 | 17 |
7 | San Diego, CA | 9 | 84 | 10 | 12 |
8 | Minneapolis, MN | 25 | 1 | 31 | 4 |
9 | Portland, OR | 51 | 13 | 20 | 2 |
10 | Seattle, WA | 54 | 8 | 22 | 5 |
11 | Fremont, CA | 1 | 64 | 1 | 46 |
12 | St. Paul, MN | 12 | 12 | 28 | 38 |
13 | Denver, CO | 80 | 9 | 23 | 1 |
14 | Sacramento, CA | 49 | 35 | 18 | 13 |
15 | Boston, MA | 11 | 2 | 49 | 34 |
16 | Madison, WI | 6 | 4 | 56 | 31 |
17 | Chula Vista, CA | 35 | 94 | 11 | 24 |
18 | Anaheim, CA | 32 | 73 | 1 | 28 |
19 | Buffalo, NY | 47 | 3 | 50 | 16 |
20 | Bakersfield, CA | 72 | 29 | 1 | 27 |
Statewide, California is pushing toward carbon neutrality by 2045, aiming to cut emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. It also plans for 100% zero-emission new car sales by 2035 and 100% clean electricity by 2045, with 60% renewable power by 2030.
Minneapolis (#8) and St. Paul (#12) stand out for their transportation infrastructure. Minneapolis ranks first in the transportation category, supported by extensive bike lanes, pedestrian-friendly design, and efficient public transit options.
Washington, DC performs particularly well in lifestyle and policy measures, ranking 8th in that category. Honolulu (#6) and Portland (#9) also make the top 10.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Mapped: Where the Air Quality is Best in Each U.S. State on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.
2025-10-19 20:18:13
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
The cost of attending America’s most prestigious universities continues to soar. For the 2024–25 academic year, the total annual cost of the top 10 national universities now ranges from $77,500 to $98,300, according to data compiled from U.S. News & World Report and College Board.
In the graphic above, we compare tuition costs for the top 10 U.S. universities with national averages for both private and public four-year colleges.
The University of Chicago tops the list, with tuition reaching $71,300. Other elite schools like Duke, Yale, and Stanford also hover near the $70,000 mark. Even Harvard, despite having one of the largest endowments in the world, lists tuition at $59,300.
Rank | Institution | Tuition | Total Cost |
---|---|---|---|
1 | University of Chicago | $71.3K | $85.4K – $98.3K |
2 | Duke University | $70.3K | $92.8K – $94.2K |
3 | Yale University | $69.9K | $94.4K |
4 | Northwestern University | $69.4K | $77.5K – $96.2K |
5 | Stanford University | $67.7K | $96.5K |
6 | Johns Hopkins University | $66.7K | $77.7K – $92.8K |
7 | Princeton University | $65.2K | $90.7K |
8 | MIT | $64.3K | $89.3K |
9 | University of Pennsylvania | $63.2K | $78.7K – $95.6K |
10 | Harvard University | $59.3K | $90.4K – $95.4K |
— | Private nonprofit 4-year | $43.4K | $62.6K |
— | Public 4-year (out-of-state) | $29.2K | $49.1K |
— | Public 4-year (in-state) | $11.6K | $29.9K |
Tuition at the top 10 U.S. universities ranges from $59,000 to $71,000 per year, averaging about 50% higher than the $43,400 charged by the typical private nonprofit four-year college. By comparison, public out-of-state universities average around $29,200, while in-state students pay just $11,600.
In fact, the average college tuition costs have climbed a remarkable 748% since 1963, after adjusting for inflation. This steady rise reflects expanding facilities, faculty salaries, and student services, but it also deepens accessibility challenges.
Facing soaring tuition costs, more American students are looking overseas for affordable alternatives.
According to the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors report, the number of Americans earning degrees abroad rose from about 50,000 in 2019 to over 90,000 in 2024.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Extra Earnings of a Bachelor’s Degree by State on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.
2025-10-19 05:14:58
See this visualization first on the Voronoi app.
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
Gun violence remains one of the most persistent public health challenges in the United States. While the national conversation often focuses on federal policy, the reality on the ground varies dramatically by state.
The map above, created by USAFacts using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), shows the age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 residents in each U.S. state in 2024.
Here is a table of all 50 states and their firearm death rates:
Rank | State | Firearm Deaths per 100K People (Age Adjusted, 2024) |
---|---|---|
1 | Mississippi | 28.1 |
2 | New Mexico | 27.0 |
3 | Alaska | 24.8 |
4 | Alabama | 24.0 |
5 | Wyoming | 23.6 |
6 | Louisiana | 23.0 |
7 | Arkansas | 20.8 |
8 | District of Columbia | 20.4 |
9 | Montana | 20.3 |
10 | Tennessee | 20.2 |
11 | South Carolina | 19.9 |
12 | Missouri | 19.8 |
13 | Oklahoma | 19.4 |
14 | Kentucky | 18.8 |
15 | Georgia | 17.8 |
16 | Nevada | 17.7 |
17 | Indiana | 17.5 |
18 | South Dakota | 17.4 |
19 | Arizona | 17.3 |
20 | North Carolina | 16.7 |
21 | Idaho | 16.3 |
22 | Colorado | 15.6 |
23 | Kansas | 15.4 |
24 | West Virginia | 15.3 |
25 | Ohio | 14.8 |
26 | Oregon | 14.4 |
27 | Texas | 14.3 |
28 | Utah | 13.7 |
29 | Florida | 13.2 |
30 | Virginia | 12.9 |
31 | Illinois | 12.6 |
32 | North Dakota | 12.5 |
33 | Wisconsin | 12.2 |
34 | Delaware | 12.1 |
35 | Michigan | 12.1 |
36 | Pennsylvania | 12.1 |
37 | Iowa | 12.0 |
38 | Maine | 12.0 |
39 | Maryland | 11.8 |
40 | Washington | 11.3 |
41 | Nebraska | 11.1 |
42 | Vermont | 10.7 |
43 | New Hampshire | 10.3 |
44 | Minnesota | 9.9 |
45 | California | 7.1 |
46 | Connecticut | 5.9 |
47 | Rhode Island | 4.7 |
48 | New York | 4.4 |
49 | New Jersey | 4.1 |
50 | Massachusetts | 3.9 |
51 | Hawaii | 3.8 |
At a glance, we can see a wide spectrum—from just 3.8 deaths per 100,000 people in Hawaii to over 28 in Mississippi.
Compared to other high-income nations, the U.S. gun death rate is exceptionally high. However, the disparity becomes even more striking when comparing individual states. Southern states like Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama lead the country in firearm mortality, with death rates often double or triple those in Northeastern states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.
The reasons behind these geographic differences are complex but generally revolve around three key factors:
In many parts of the U.S., particularly in the South and Mountain West, firearms are deeply embedded in the cultural fabric. Hunting, self-defense, and strong support for Second Amendment rights shape policy decisions and public sentiment, making any statewide gun control efforts politically challenging.
Meanwhile, urban areas in lower-death-rate states still face localized spikes in gun violence, often driven by factors such as gang activity. This underscores how state-level averages can mask important within-state variations.
Related reading: Mapped: U.S. States With the Most Guns
Explore more data-rich visuals like this in our recommended post: 30 Years of Gun Manufacturing in America.
2025-10-19 02:24:57
This was originally posted on our Voronoi app. Download the app for free on iOS or Android and discover incredible data-driven charts from a variety of trusted sources.
The animal kingdom showcases some extraordinary examples of strength, with species evolving specialized muscles, body mechanics, and leverage to survive.
In this graphic, we ranked the world’s strongest animals based on the maximum weight they’re capable of lifting.
The data for this visualization comes from BBC Science Focus. The max lift (measured by bench press) of an average American male was included for context.
Animal | Max Lift (lbs) | Typical Body Weight (lbs) |
---|---|---|
![]() |
135 | 200 |
![]() |
280 | 110 |
![]() |
1,000 | 1,075 |
![]() |
1,000 | 425 |
![]() |
1,100 | 525 |
![]() |
1,200 | 475 |
![]() |
2,000 | 600 |
![]() |
1,800 | 4,750 |
![]() |
1,800 | 400 |
![]() |
13,000 | 13,000 |
The African bush elephant stands out in terms of absolute strength. Capable of lifting 13,000 pounds, the equivalent of a small school bus, it’s the most powerful land animal alive.
Elephant trunks can contain up to 40,000 muscles, which allows for both delicate tasks like picking up a single blade of grass and massive feats of strength like uprooting trees.
Elephants are also one of the world’s longest-living mammals, though their lifespans are shorter than humans.
Among carnivores, the tiger ranks as the most muscular predator. It has the ability to lift more than twice its body weight, and uses explosive movements for hunting prey.
Gorillas, despite being primarily herbivores, rival big cats in raw power. Their upper-body muscles allow them to lift over 1,800 pounds.
Compared to humans, gorillas have extremely dense muscle fibers as well as longer arms and thicker bones.
While it can’t lift 1,000 pounds, the dung beetle is the world’s strongest creature when measured in relative terms.
Found in almost every region of the world, this feces-eating bug can push up to 40 pounds, equal to over 1,100 times its own body weight.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The World’s Most Biodiverse Countries on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.
2025-10-18 22:22:09
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.
Human longevity has fascinated scientists and historians for centuries. Across cultures and generations, certain individuals have lived well beyond the average human lifespan, offering insights into health, genetics, and lifestyle.
In this graphic, we visualize the world’s oldest people in history, highlighting extreme cases of longevity among men and women.
The data for this visualization comes from Wikipedia, which compiles verified records from official sources like the Gerontology Research Group or Guinness World Records.
The world’s oldest women have all lived beyond 115 years, with Jeanne Calment of France reaching an incredible 122 years, 164 days.
Born in 1875, she witnessed the Eiffel Tower’s construction, both world wars, and the rise of modern technology. She attributed her longevity to a Mediterranean-style life: applying olive oil to her skin, enjoying chocolate and wine, and staying physically active.
Name | Place of death or residence |
Birth date | Death date | Age (years, days) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Jeanne Calment |
![]() |
Feb. 21, 1875 | Aug. 4, 1997 | 122 years, 164 days |
Kane Tanaka |
![]() |
Jan. 2, 1903 | Apr. 19, 2022 | 119 years, 107 days |
Sarah Knauss |
![]() |
Sep. 24, 1880 | Dec. 30, 1999 | 119 years, 97 days |
Lucile Randon |
![]() |
Feb. 11, 1904 | Jan. 17, 2023 | 118 years, 340 days |
Nabi Tajima |
![]() |
Aug. 4, 1900 | Apr. 21, 2018 | 117 years, 260 days |
Marie-Louise Meilleur |
![]() |
Aug. 29, 1880 | Apr. 16, 1998 | 117 years, 230 days |
Violet Brown |
![]() |
Mar. 10, 1900 | Sep. 15, 2017 | 117 years, 189 days |
Maria Branyas |
![]() |
Mar. 4, 1907 | Aug. 19, 2024 | 117 years, 168 days |
Emma Morano |
![]() |
Nov. 29, 1899 | Apr. 15, 2017 | 117 years, 137 days |
Chiyo Miyako |
![]() |
May. 2, 1901 | Jul. 22, 2018 | 117 years, 81 days |
Third in this ranking is Sarah Knauss, the oldest person ever from the United States. Prior to her death, there were six living generations within her family. Staff members at the nursing home Sarah lived in remembered her for her calm temperament.
Jiroemon Kimura of Japan claims the title of the world’s oldest man, living 117 years, 54 days. He attributed his longevity to staying active and only eating until about 80% full (a Japanese concept known as hara hachi bunme).
Name | Place of death or residence |
Birth date | Death date | Age |
---|---|---|---|---|
Jiroemon Kimura |
![]() |
Apr. 19, 1897 | Jun. 12, 2013 | 116 years, 54 days |
Christian Mortensen |
![]() |
Aug. 16, 1882 | Apr. 25, 1998 | 115 years, 252 days |
Emiliano Mercado del Toro |
![]() |
Aug. 21, 1891 | Jan. 24, 2007 | 115 years, 156 days |
Juan Vicente Pérez |
![]() |
May. 27, 1909 | Apr. 2, 2024 | 114 years, 311 days |
Horacio Celi Mendoza |
![]() |
Jan. 3, 1897 | Sep. 25, 2011 | 114 years, 265 days |
Walter Breuning |
![]() |
Sep. 21, 1896 | Apr. 14, 2011 | 114 years, 205 days |
Yukichi Chuganji |
![]() |
Mar. 23, 1889 | Sep. 28, 2003 | 114 years, 189 days |
Tomás Pinales Figuereo |
![]() |
Mar. 31, 1906 | Sep. 24, 2020 | 114 years, 177 days |
Joan Riudavets |
![]() |
Dec. 15, 1889 | Mar. 5, 2004 | 114 years, 81 days |
Fred Harold Hale |
![]() |
Dec. 1, 1890 | Nov. 19, 2004 | 113 years, 354 days |
Women typically live longer than men for a mix of biological and behavioral reasons.
For example, estrogen may offer cardiovascular protection, and women generally engage less in risky behaviors like heavy drinking or dangerous occupations.
Recent studies across mammal species also suggest that having two X chromosomes may provide females with greater resilience against harmful mutations, giving them a genetic edge in longevity.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Life Expectancy Around the World in 2025 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.