What are the largest and smallest average penis measurements by country or region?

1. What the rankings say: who’s largest and who’s smallest

Multiple recent compilations and infographics place Ecuador at or near the top with an erect average of about 17.6 cm (6.9 in), while several Southeast Asian countries (Thailand, Cambodia, Cambodia/Thailand variants) appear near the bottom with reported averages in the ~9.4–10.0 cm (3.7–4.0 in) range; Visual Capitalist, Data Pandas and WorldData all reflect this pattern ^{[2] [1] [3]}. Other frequently top‑ranked countries include Cameroon, DR Congo and some South American nations, and many African and Latin American countries appear in the higher tiers across different lists ^{[2] [5]}.

2. How consistent are the headline numbers? Not very — methods vary

Key compilations merge different studies and mixes of self‑reported and clinically measured values; that produces wide variation and makes direct country‑to‑country ranking fragile. World Population Review and Visual Capitalist explicitly flag methodological limits and heterogeneous sources, and Data Pandas notes some country samples number only in the dozens while others are much larger ^{[4] [2] [1]}. Systematic reviews also show erect length estimates and trends can change depending on inclusion criteria and measurement technique ^{[6] [7]}.

3. Scientific context: averages cluster, differences are modest

Major reviews and encyclopedic summaries put the human erect average in the ballpark of 13–14 cm (5–5.5 in), and emphasize that differences between ethnicities and countries are usually smaller than popular belief suggests ^{[7] [4]}. The 2015 review cited on Wikipedia and other meta‑analytic work find average erect lengths around 13.12 cm, and a 2024–2025 meta‑analysis reports temporal increases in erect length but still works in similar ranges ^{[7] [6]}.

4. Why small samples and self‑reporting matter

Self‑measurement tends to overestimate length compared with clinician measurement; some country lists are largely built from self‑reported surveys or mixed datasets, which inflates apparent differences and can bias a country’s ranking ^{[4] [1]}. Several sites explicitly warn that where sample sizes are small, or recruitment non‑random, the reported national average may not represent the whole population ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Regional patterns and explanations — careful with causal claims

Many lists show higher averages across parts of Africa and Latin America and lower averages across East and Southeast Asia; authors and visualizations suggest genetics, environment and measurement bias as possible factors but stop short of firm causal claims because the data can’t prove them ^{[2] [1]}. Where authors or sites advance explanations, readers should note the implicit agenda: some commercial pages mix health info with sales or attention‑seeking headlines ^{[8] [9]}.

6. What solid science does say — and what it doesn’t

Systematic reviews and reputable summaries emphasize a human mean in the 13 cm range and show that measurement technique (clinician vs. self‑report; how the fat pad is compressed) materially affects results; they do not endorse simplistic biological determinism for country rankings ^{[7] [6]}. Available sources do not mention a definitive, universally accepted, large‑scale study that measured representative national samples with standardized clinical protocols for every country (not found in current reporting).

7. How to read headlines and maps

Treat single‑figure country rankings and colorful maps as indicative, not definitive. The most‑cited aggregations (Data Pandas / Visual Capitalist / WorldData) are useful for spotting patterns — e.g., Ecuador and several African nations recurrently rank high, Southeast Asia low — but all their pages warn readers about measurement heterogeneity and sampling limits ^{[1] [2] [3]}. When you see an attention‑grabbing number, check whether it’s self‑reported, measured by clinicians, or derived from very small samples ^{[4] [1]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

If you want a cautious answer: global averages sit near 13–14 cm erect, with Ecuador frequently reported as the largest (~17.6 cm) and several Southeast Asian countries among the smallest (~9–10 cm), but those cross‑national claims rest on uneven data and mixed methods that limit their reliability ^{[3] [1] [2]}. Policymakers, clinicians and journalists should treat country rankings as hypothesis‑generating rather than conclusive, and prioritize standardized clinical studies before drawing firm biological or social inferences ^{[7] [6]}.