The SDG Index and Dashboards provide an annual assessment of SDG progress covering all 193 UN member states. The SDG Index score is presented on a scale of 0 to 100 and can be interpreted as a percentage towards optimal performance on the SDGs. While all 193 UN member states have a country profile, some countries are not ranked due to missing data. This year, a total of169 countries are ranked in the SDG Index, including two new countries not previously ranked: Eritrea and TimorLeste. This year’s SDG Index incorporates 123 indicators, including 101 global indicators and 22 additional indicators used for the OECD countries’ dashboards. A new indicator from the FAO, on progress towards productive and sustainable agriculture, was added to track progress on SDG 2 (No Hunger). Additional changes in the indicators used are described in the methods section (see Methodology).
This year’s edition presents, for the first time, retroactively calculated SDG Index rankings. Because the selection of indicators is refined with each successive edition of the Sustainable Development Report (SDR), rankings from different editions are not perfectly comparable. The retroactive rank calculation uses the same set of indicators and quantitative thresholds across time, allowing rankings to be compared year on year. This year’s report also refines the “headline” SDG Index (SDGhi), which draws on 17 SDG indicators to evaluate progress made by countries and regions on the SDGs while minimizing statistical biases due to missing timeseries data.
The SDG Index builds on a peer-reviewed, statistically audited, and transparent methodology (Lafortune et al., 2018; Papadimitriou et al., 2019; SchmidtTraub et al., 2017). An online public consultation was held between 17 and 27 April 2026, gathering comments and suggestions from more than 100 different organizations, including approximately 20 national governments and federal agencies, including national statistical offices. The full database and methodological papers, as well as regional and local editions of the SDG Index and Dashboards, are available on the SDG Transformation Center website (https://sdgtransformationcenter.org/).
2.1. Status of SDG progress globally
Based on current rates of progress, none of the 17 SDGs will be achieved by 2030 (Figure 2.1). At the global level, SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) are particularly off track, with major SDG challenges (as indicated by red on the dashboards) and stagnation in progress since 2015.
Figure 2.1 | World SDG Dashboard 2026
Source: Authors
Overall, less than 20 percent of the SDG targets are on track to be achieved globally (16.5 percent) (Figure 2.2). The five targets that are most on track globally are mobile broadband subscriptions (SDG 9), adolescent fertility rate (SDG 3), new HIV infections (SDG 3), Internet use (SDG 9), and electricity access (SDG 7). By contrast, the indicators furthest off track tend to be related to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) – which also covers unsustainable diets and agriculture – and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). More specifically these include prevalence of obesity (SDG 2), progress towards productive and sustainable agriculture (SDG 2), timeliness of administrative proceedings (SDG 16)Press Freedom Index ranking (SDG 16), and Corruption Perceptions Index score (SDG 16).
Figure 2.2 | Status of SDG targets: percentage on track
Source: Authors’ calculations.
As in previous editions, European countries, particularly the Nordic countries, top the 2026 SDG Index. Finland ranks first, followed by Sweden and Denmark (Figure 2.3). However, even these countries face significant challenges in achieving several SDGs, including SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 14 (Life below Water) and SDG 15 (Life on Land). These challenges are driven partly by unsustainable consumption patterns and negative international spillover effects. Countries at the bottom of the SDG Index ranking tend to be affected by conflict, security issues, political instability and limited fiscal space. As in last year’s edition, Chad, the Central African Republic and South Sudan rank at the bottom of this year’s SDG Index.
Figure 2.3.a | 2026 SDG Index scores and rankings
Note: Due to annual adjustments to the SDG Index dataset and revisions made by statistical custodian agencies to past data series, scores and ranks are not fully comparable across different editions of the SDR.
Source: Authors
Figure 2.3.b | 2026 SDG Index scores and rankings (continued)
Note: Due to annual adjustments to the SDG Index dataset and revisions made by statistical custodian agencies to past data series, scores and ranks are not fully comparable across different editions of the SDR.
Source: Authors
2.2. SDG progress by world regions and countries
The “headline” SDG Index (SDGhi) comprises 17 SDG indicators (one per SDG) to measure overall country progress on the SDGs. This reduced number of indicators aims to limit statistical biases related to missing timeseries data across countries. Results were compiled for 146 countries: these are presented in the country profiles. Among the countries excluded due to missing data, many face major SDG challenges or even reversals in progress, often due to conflict or structural vulnerabilities. The 17 headline SDG indicators are listed in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 | The 17 headline indicators used to measure overall country progress on the SDGs, 2015–2025 or closest available year
Source: Authors
In general, high-income and OECD countries started with higher SDG baseline scores, primarily driven by their better performance on socioeconomic goals, but they have generally shown limited progress on the SDGhi (Figure 2.4). By contrast, although emerging economies in the BRICS+, East and South Asia, and lower-middle income countries started with lower 2015baselines, they have since progressed much faster. East and South Asia has been the fastest progressing region since 2015. Sub-Saharan African and low-income countries, which started from the lowest 2015 baselines, have progressed more slowly than their income levels would have predicted, revealing a slow pace of convergence.
Figure 2.4 | SDG Index: baseline versus progress, by region and income group
Source: Authors
Regional and income group aggregates may hide meaningful differences in SDG progress across countries. Among the G20 and large countries, Ethiopia and India have displayed the greatest level of progress since 2015, gaining 9.7 and 9.6 percentage points respectively. They are followed by the Philippines and Vietnam (+7.9 p.p. and +7.7 p.p. respectively), demonstrating the rapid pace of progress among the largest Asian economies, which also includes China (+5.2 p.p.). By contrast, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (+3.1 p.p.) and Nigeria (+2.3 p.p.) have progressed much more slowly, despite their low baseline scores. In most cases, rapid progress has been driven primarily by progress on socioeconomic SDG indicators, rather than on environmental goals.
To dive deeper into the drivers of SDG progress, as well as persisting disparities within regions and countries, the SDSN has published multiple regional and subnational editions of the SDG Index. These editions also identify specific policy and financing priorities across regions and at multiple territorial levels (Box 2.1). This work increasingly draws on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Earth observation (EO) technologies, which support the development of timely and granular investment, policy and monitoring frameworks for the SDGs at all levels.
Figure 2.5 | SDG Index Baseline versus progress, G20 and large countries
Source: Authors
Box 2.1. A decade of the SDG Index and dashboards: global, regional, national and subnational editions
The global edition of the SDG Index and Dashboards aims to highlight global SDG trends and challenges, but more detailed regional and subnational SDG indices and analyses have also been prepared by the SDSN and its local networks. These editions make it possible to contextualize indicator sets and policy discussions, and to mobilize stakeholders at different levels.
For instance, the Europe edition released annually since 2019, is prepared in cooperation with the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which includes representatives from trade unions, business associations and NGOs. Its findings are presented to and discussed with European leaders and institutions (Lafortune and Fuller, 2026). The SDSN has also worked with numerous regional and local partners in the Arab region and in SIDS countries,as well as in Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Italy, Paraguay, Spain, the United States, Uruguay and Uzbekistan – to advance SDG monitoring and connect the statistical analyses with long-term budgeting and policy frameworks.
These editions all benefit from local expertise, often provided by local SDSN networks hosted in universities and research centers, as well as from largescale consultations and discussions before and after the assessments are conducted. Increasingly, these also leverage GIS technologies to provide more granular analysis. They have been referenced multiple times in Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs). In Europe, the European Parliamentary Research Service listed the SDG Index and Dashboards as one of the most useful indices available for policymaking (EPRS, 2021).
Figure 2.6 | Global, regional and subnational SDR editions, 2016–2026
Source: Authors. Accessible online here: https://sdgtransformationcenter.org/sdgindex
Figure 2.7 shows the SDG Index rankings since 2015 of the ten largest countries, together with Finland, the top performer globally. These rankings have been calculated retroactively using the same basket of indicators for each year, so that they can be compared year-on-year. The ranking changes illustrate the relative difference in performance across these countries. Although all ten of the largest countries have made net progression on the SDGs, their positions relative to one another have changed, in some cases significantly, over time.
Figure 2.7 | Change in SDG Index rankings since 2015, 10 largest countries and the top performer (Finland)
Source: Authors’ calculations
In 2015, there was a considerable degree of distance separating the SDG performance of three of the great powers: the United States ranked 40th, Russia 51st and China 63rd. Over the ensuing decade, the United States dropped to 45th place, Russia remained at 51st, and China rose rapidly to 49th. Owing to its faster pace of SDG progress over the period, China surpassed Russia in 2021, and based on current rates of progress it is on track to surpass the United States in the coming years. These rank changes illustrate how different trajectories in SDG progress have led to a realignment in terms of SDG outcomes today.
Besides China, which has risen 14 positions in the rankings since 2015, other countries that have progressed much faster than their peers include India (+18 positions), Indonesia (+15 positions), and Ethiopia (+15 positions). Brazil’s rankings have followed a U-shaped trajectory: the country started out in a relatively high position in 2015 and dropped steadily over the next eight years, until a sharp uptick started in 2023. The United States and Nigeria have dropped the most in the rankings, each losing five positions relative to their 2015 starting points.
Box 2.2. Setting performance thresholds for the SDG Index
One of the hallmarks of the SDG Index methodology is that it measures the distance from absolute quantitative targets that are applicable to all countries. Whereas other SDG monitoring instruments often measure relative progress, the SDG index establishes quantitative performance criteria that make it possible to assess whether the pace of progress is sufficient to meet predefined targets (Lafortune et al., 2020).
As described in the methodology section, indicator thresholds are set via a decision tree and are derived from several sources, including, where possible, SDG targets (or targets available in other international treaties), statistical methods (such as the mean value of top performers), science-backed targets (from academic literature) and input from experts and practitioners. Table 2.2 below provides illustrative examples and explains the rationale behind selected thresholds used in the SDG Index, drawing on relevant policy and research contributions. Each year, the indicator selection and thresholds are submitted for global public consultations. The indicators, targets and thresholds are adjusted in regional and national editions of the SDR in collaboration with institutions and civil society taking into account context-specific policy objectives.
Table 2.2 | Select SDG Index indicators and performance thresholds, policy and research basis
Source: Authors
2.3. Perceptions of progress
Using the data collected through the SDSN largescale survey on SDG challenges and means for implementation (see Part 4), we measured the percentage of respondents who perceive that their country has seen moderate or strong progress in implementing sustainable development. Figure 2.8 plots this percentage against measured progress on the SDGhi over the period 2015–2025. Progress tends to be perceived as lower in countries that are close to achieving the SDGs than in countries that started with bigger SDG gaps. Yet among countries that were already relatively close to SDG achievement at the outset, perceptions differ widely: In Canada, a majority of respondents feel there is SDG progress, whereas in the United States, less than 20 percent do so. Among countries that had greater SDG gaps in 2015, perceptions vary considerably. Less than a quarter of respondents in Türkiye feel progress is being made, which appears to reflect the actual slow pace of progress in the country, while in China, almost 90 percent of respondents feel there is progress. In the DRC, where progress has been relatively slow, respondents recognized the devastating effects of the conflict in the country’s eastern region, but also pointed to promising signs of SDG progress, led in part by civil society organizations and local communities. In Ethiopia and India, progress in outcome statistics, as measured by the SDG Index, is matched by strong perceived progress among local actors involved in SDG implementation.
Figure 2.8 | Perception of SDG progress versus progress on the SDGhi (percentage points)
Note: Graph depicts G20 and large countries. Vietnam and Saudi Arabia were excluded due to too few responses (n<5).
Source: Authors’ calculation. See Part 4. For details about 2026 SDSN large-Scale Survey.
The survey results should be interpreted with caution. They represent the views of actors involved in implementing sustainable development and climate action at the country level; they are not representative of the general population and may not capture territorial disparities.
2.4. International spillovers
Overall, the lion’s share of negative spillover effects - in particular trade-related and consumption-based spillovers - are generated by rich countries (Figures 2.9, 2.10). Although they outperform other country groups in overall SDG performance, high-income countries have outsourced many negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts abroad. Further details on our conceptual framework, policy analysis and data work on international spillovers have been presented in previous editions and are available on the SDG Transformation Center website (Malik et al. 2021, 2023, 2024; Fuller and Bermont-Diaz, 2024; Ishii et al. 2024).
Figure 2.9 | Score on the SDG Index and the International Spillover Index by regions and income groups, 2026
Note: Details on the indicators used to compile the International Spillover Index are accessible in the methods’ summary. Averages are population-weighted.
Source: Authors
Figure 2.10 | International spillover scores versus GDP per capita
Source: Authors’ calculations and World Bank.
2.5. Outlook
2.6. Annex: SDG Dashboards by regions
Figure 2.11 | 2026 SDG dashboard by region and income group (ratings and trends)
Note: Excludes OECD-specific indicators. Population-weighted averages.
Source: Authors
Figure 2.12 | 2026 SDG dashboard for OECD countries (ratings and trends)
Source: Authors
Figure 2.13 | 2026 SDG dashboard for East and South Asia (ratings and trends)
Source: Authors
Figure 2.14 | 2026 SDG dashboard for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ratings and trends)
Note: The data for Ukraine, and other countries impacted by military conflicts, may be outdated.
Source: Authors
Figure 2.15 | 2026 SDG dashboard for Latin America and the Caribbean (ratings and trends)
Source: Authors
Figure 2.16 | 2026 SDG dashboard for the Middle East and North Africa (ratings and trends)
Source: Authors
Figure 2.17 | 2026 SDG dashboard for Oceania (ratings and trends)
Source: Authors
Figure 2.18 | 2026 SDG dashboard for sub-Saharan Africa (ratings and trends)
Source: Authors
Figure 2.19 | 2026 SDG dashboard for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) (ratings and trends)
Source: Authors
2.7. References
Doyle, M. W., and J. E. Stiglitz. 2014. Eliminating extreme inequality: a sustainable development goal, 2015–2030. Ethics & International Affairs, 28(1), 513. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0892679414000021
Edreira, J. I. R., J. F. Andrade, K. G. Cassman, M. K. Van Ittersum, M. P. Van Loon and P. Grassini. 2021. Spatial frameworks for robust estimation of yield gaps.Nature Food, 2(10), 773–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00365-y
EPRS. 2021. Ten Composite Indices for Policy-Making. European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_IDA(2021)696203
FAO. 2024. SDG indicator metadata. Indicator 6.4.2:Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources. UNSTATS. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-06-04-02.pdf
Fuller, G. and L. Bermont-Diaz. 2024. International Spillover Effects and Germany: An analysis of Germany’s performance on spillovers and the policy options to manage them. Paris: SDSN and Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17990.89922
Gómez-Paredes, J., A. Malik, and G. Lafortune. 2025. SDG-nexus and spillovers at the heart of Agenda 2030. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 4(1): e0000157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000157.
Ishii, N., G. Lafortune, D. C. Esty, E. Berthet, G. Fuller, A. Kawasaki, L. Bermont-Diaz and S. Allali. 2024. Global Commons Stewardship Index 2024. SDSN, Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy and Center for Global Commons at the University of Tokyo. Paris, New Haven, CT and Tokyo.
Lafortune, G., and G. Fuller. 2026. Europe Sustainable Development Report 2026: SDG Pathways to 2030 and Mid-Century. (with Harte, N. and TCD in the IReL Consortium). Dublin University Press. https://doi.org/10.82163/224
Lafortune, G., G. Fuller, G., J. Moreno, G. Schmidt-Traub and C. Kroll. 2018. SDG Index and Dashboards: Detailed Methodological Paper. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://github.com/sdsna/2018GlobalIndex/raw/master/2018GlobalIndexMethodology.pdf
Lafortune, G., G. Fuller, G, SchmidtTraub and C. Kroll. 2020. How is progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals measured? Comparing four approaches for the EU. Sustainability, 12(18), Article18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187675
Lafortune, G., Z. A. Wendling, G. SchmidtTraub, F. Woelm, C. Baez, R. Miller, D. C. Esty, N. Ishii and A. Kawazaki. 2021. Measuring countries’ impacts on the global commons: a new approach based on production- and consumption-based accounting. In Understanding the Spillovers and Transboundary Impacts of Public Policies: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for More Resilient Societies, OECD and the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, 167–91. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/862c0db7-en
Malik, A., G. Lafortune, S. Carter, M. Li, M. Lenzen and Christian Kroll. 2021. International spillover effects in the EU’s textile supply chains: a global SDG assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 295 (October):113037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113037
Malik, A., G. Lafortune, S. Dahir, Z. A. Wendling, C. Kroll, S. Carter, M. Li and M. Lenzen. 2023. Global environmental and social spillover effects of EU’s food trade. Global Sustainability 6 ( January):e6. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.4.
Malik, A., G. Lafortune, C. J. Mora, S. Carter and M. Lenzen. 2024. Carbon and social impacts in the EU’s consumption of fossil and mineral raw materials. Journal of Environmental Management 369 (October):122291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2024.122291.
OECD (2023), Effective Carbon Rates 2023: Pricing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Taxes and Emissions Trading, OECD Series on Carbon Pricing and Energy Taxation. Paris: OECD Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1787/b84d5b36-en.
Papadimitriou, E., A. Neves and W. Becker. 2019. JRC Statistical Audit of the Sustainable Development Goals Index and Dashboards. European Commission,Joint Research Centre, July. doi:10.2760/723763, JRC116857.
SchmidtTraub, G., C. Kroll, K. Teksoz, D. DurandDelacre and J. D. Sachs. 2017. National baselines for the Sustainable Development Goals assessed in the SDG Index and Dashboards. Nature Geoscience 10 (8): 547–55. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2985.
The Sustainable Development Report (formerly the SDG Index & Dashboards) is a global assessment of countries' progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. It is a complement to the official SDG indicators and the voluntary national reviews.
All data presented on this website are based on the publication Sachs, J.D., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., Iablonovski, G. (2026). Implementing Sustainable Development: 2030 and Beyond. Sustainable Development Report 2026. Paris: SDSN, Dublin: Dublin University Press. DOI:20.500.14765/118015
Feedback? Questions? Contact us at info@sdgindex.org