What recent large-scale studies (2015-2025) report average adult penis length and girth globally?
Executive summary
Large, peer-reviewed syntheses since 2015 converge on an average erect adult penis length of roughly 13–14 cm (about 5.1–5.5 in) and an average erect girth (circumference) around 11.66 cm (4.59 in): Veale et al.’s 2015 meta‑analysis of 15,521 men reported erect length 13.12 cm and erect girth 11.66 cm [1] [2], and later pooled reviews and meta‑analyses (including a 2024–25 series of WHO‑region analyses) report erect means in the 12.1–13.9 cm range with region‑by‑region variation [3] [4] [5].
1. What the large studies report — headline numbers
The most‑cited clinician‑measured synthesis is Veale et al. , which compiled data from up to 15,521 men and produced an average erect length of about 13.12 cm (5.16 in) and erect circumference of 11.66 cm (4.59 in) [1] [2]. A later systematic meta‑analysis of worldwide temporal trends pooled numerous studies and reported pooled erect length roughly 13.93 cm (95% CI 13.20–14.65) while giving pooled flaccid and stretched values as well [4]. Region‑focused meta‑analyses published through 2024–2025 report global erect estimates that range roughly from ~12.1 cm up to ~13.9 cm depending on included studies and methods [3] [5].
2. Why numbers differ — measurement and selection matter
Differences among studies stem from method: measurements taken by clinicians using a standard pubic‑bone‑to‑glans method produce consistently smaller, more reliable means than self‑reported online surveys, which overestimate length [2] [6]. Inclusion criteria also vary: many reputable meta‑analyses exclude men with erectile dysfunction or prior penile surgery and require clinician measurement or a minimum sample size, changing the pooled average [1] [5].
3. Geographic variation — real but modest and debated
Meta‑analyses that stratify by region or WHO region find significant variation across geographic groups, with some regions showing higher pooled means and others lower; authors caution that sample sizes and clinical settings differ by country, so national “rankings” are sensitive to which datasets are included and how self‑report bias is adjusted [5] [4] [7]. Visualizations and commercial rankings (Data Pandas, Visual Capitalist, WorldData) reproduce these regional patterns but rely on compiled data and adjustments that the underlying academic reviews treat cautiously [6] [8] [9].
4. Temporal trends — are penises getting longer?
A systematic review and meta‑analysis of temporal trends concluded erect length increased significantly in some regions over recent decades, though the reasons—measurement differences, sampling frames, environmental or nutritional changes—remain under discussion in the literature [4]. Other recent meta‑analyses emphasize methodological heterogeneity rather than definitive biological change [10].
5. Girth receives less attention but has clearer consensus
Girth (circumference) is reported less often, but the larger clinician‑measured reviews converge on an average erect girth near 11.66 cm (4.59 in) and flaccid circumference near 9.31 cm (3.67 in) in the Veale synthesis and subsequent coverage [2] [11]. More recent regional meta‑analyses include circumference but note fewer high‑quality data points than for length [5].
6. What journalists and aggregators add — and where to be skeptical
Commercial or click‑oriented country rankings and “2025 global surveys” claim larger samples and country‑level precision, but many such outlets mix self‑reported data with adjusted figures and do not always publish methods; academic reviews warn against treating these rankings as definitive without transparency on measurement and bias correction [6] [12] [1]. Visualizations that cite Data Pandas or aggregated compilations reproduce patterns from meta‑analyses but may inflate apparent certainty around country rankings [8] [6].
7. How to read the literature — practical takeaways
Use clinician‑measured, peer‑reviewed meta‑analyses as the best baseline: expect an erect mean roughly 13–14 cm and erect girth about 11.6 cm, with modest regional variation and important caveats about measurement method and sample selection [1] [4] [5]. For country‑level claims, demand transparent methods showing whether data are clinician‑measured or self‑reported and how adjustments were made [6] [8].
Limitations: available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted “global” dataset from 2015–2025 that replaces the Veale 2015 synthesis; instead, the field relies on meta‑analyses, regional reviews, and compilations with differing inclusion rules [1] [5].