What are global average penis size ranges broken down by country or region?
Executive summary
Major compilations put the global erect penis average in the mid‑teens of centimetres: several aggregations report a worldwide mean around 13–14 cm (about 5–5.5 in) [1] [2] [3]. Country rankings in public datasets vary widely — for example, Ecuador and DR Congo appear near the top at ~17.6 cm and ~17–18 cm respectively, while Thailand is commonly reported among the smallest at ~9.4–9.5 cm — but those per‑country numbers come from mixed, uneven sources and must be treated cautiously [4] [5] [6].
1. What the numbers typically say: global and regional ranges
Systematic reviews and major compendia converge on an average erect length in the mid‑teens: a 2015‑style review and meta‑analyses give an erect mean about 13.1–13.8 cm (5.1–5.5 in) [3] [7]. Aggregated 2025 online compilations and visualizations likewise place the global mean near 13.1–13.9 cm and report regional clusters — higher averages in parts of Africa and Latin America, lower averages in East and Southeast Asia — but these compilations draw on heterogeneous studies and reporting methods [1] [2] [4].
2. Country rankings: large differences, but uneven evidence
Public rankings list dramatic per‑country differences: one dataset ranks Ecuador highest at 17.59 cm and Thailand lowest at 9.43 cm, a spread of about 8.16 cm [4]. VisualCapitalist’s 142‑country map and other 2025 summaries also highlight Ecuador and DR Congo at the top (~17.6 cm) and several Southeast Asian countries near the bottom [5] [6]. These numbers reflect compiled surveys, not one standardized global measurement campaign, and sample sizes vary greatly between countries [4] [8].
3. Why the figures vary so much: measurement and sampling issues
Variation across lists is driven less by biology than by methodology. Studies differ on whether measurements were self‑reported or clinically taken; sample sizes range from hundreds to only a few dozen; age distributions and measurement protocols are inconsistent [4] [8] [7]. The systematic review limited eligible data to studies where healthcare professionals measured subjects and still cautioned about age and ethnic diversity limitations [7].
4. What rigorous reviews show by region
A peer‑review style meta‑analysis that grouped data by WHO region found mean erect lengths clustered around the mid‑teens and documented regional differences — for example, mean stretched length was largest in the Americas — but emphasized that study heterogeneity and limited ethnic diversity constrain firm geographic conclusions [7]. In short: regional patterns exist in aggregated datasets, but they don’t establish precise country‑level norms [7].
5. How to read media lists and viral rankings
Many popular lists (WorldPopulationReview, DataPandas, SupremePenis, VisualCapitalist and others) are useful for a quick snapshot but combine published studies, older reviews, self‑reported surveys and small clinical samples without uniform standards [1] [4] [2] [5]. Journalists and readers should treat headline rankings (“biggest” or “smallest” country) as indicative, not definitive, and watch for cherry‑picking of single studies to produce dramatic maps [4] [5].
6. Health, interpretation and social context
Authoritative syntheses emphasize that the typical erect length falls within a relatively narrow normal range (roughly 13–15 cm) and that penis size has little demonstrated correlation with fertility or number of partners; cultural importance and commercial incentives (enlargement products, sensational journalism) distort public perception [1] [3] [7]. Many sources warn about the psychological impact of unrealistic expectations created by media lists and marketing [7] [9].
7. Limits of current reporting and what’s missing
Available sources do not mention a single, standardized global dataset measured under identical clinical protocols across all countries; instead, they rely on meta‑analysis of disparate studies or aggregated online compilations [4] [7]. That absence makes precise country‑by‑country comparisons unreliable: differences of a centimetre or two can reflect method, sample bias or age differences rather than population biology [4] [7].
8. Practical takeaways
Use regional averages (mid‑teens of cm) from systematic reviews for a conservative baseline and treat flashy nation rankings as provisional. When a report cites a country’s mean (e.g., Ecuador ~17.6 cm, DR Congo ~17–18 cm, Thailand ~9.4 cm, India ~12.9 cm), check the underlying study, sample size and whether measurements were clinical or self‑reported before drawing conclusions [4] [5] [10] [6].
Sources cited in this briefing include aggregated country lists and visualizations (WorldPopulationReview, DataPandas, VisualCapitalist, SupremePenis) and peer‑review/meta‑analysis literature and encyclopedic summaries that contextualize averages and methodological limits [1] [4] [2] [5] [6] [3] [7].