The Netherlands, Denmark, and Iceland topped the global pension systems ranking Marsh CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2026, published 20 October by the international consulting company Marsh in conjunction with CFA Institute. The study covered 55 pension systems, which represent approximately 66% of the world's population, reports the analytical center Experts Club, citing the official report.
The Netherlands retained the first place with a score of 85.8 out of 100 possible. Denmark took second place with 84.1 points, and Iceland third with 84.0 points.
The top six countries that received the highest A rating also included Singapore, Israel, and Australia.
A feature of the 2026 ranking was the improvement in Australia's rating, which for the first time entered the highest category.
The top ten pension systems in the world in 2026
Position | Country | Score out of 100 | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
1 | Netherlands | 85.8 | A |
2 | Denmark | 84.1 | A |
3 | Iceland | 84.0 | A |
4 | Singapore | 82.0 | A |
5 | Israel | 81.9 | A |
6 | Australia | 80.6 | A |
7 | Chile | 79.2 | B+ |
8 | Sweden | 78.8 | B+ |
9 | Finland | 77.6 | B+ |
10 | Norway | 77.0 | B+ |
According to the organizers of the study, five countries - the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Singapore, and Israel - retained the highest rating compared to the previous year.
Australia improved its result from 77.6 points in 2025 to 80.6 points in 2026.
Overall, the average value of the global pension index increased by 1.1 points compared to the previous year.
How the reliability of the pension system is determined
The Marsh CFA Institute Global Pension Index is one of the most well-known international pension studies. In 2026 it was published for the eighteenth time.
Unlike rankings that compare only the size of pensions, this index evaluates the ability of the pension system to provide adequate income for citizens over the long term.
The methodology includes more than 50 indicators, combined into three main categories.
Adequacy of pension provision - 40% of the total score. This indicator characterizes the level of pension payments, the coverage of the population by pension programs, and the system's ability to provide acceptable income after the end of work activity.
Long-term sustainability - 35%. The demographic situation, funding of pension obligations, the state of the economy, and the ability of the state and pension funds to fulfill obligations to future generations are taken into account.
Reliability of management and regulation - 25%. Transparency, management of pension assets, protection of participants' rights, quality of financial regulation, and trust in the system are evaluated.
This approach explains why countries with relatively high current pension payments do not always occupy leading positions in the overall ranking.
Why the Netherlands, Denmark, and Iceland remain leaders
The Netherlands received high scores in all three components of the ranking: 87.7 points for adequacy, 82.6 points for sustainability, and 87.2 points for management quality.
The country's pension system combines basic state support with the wide use of professional accumulation programs, in which employers and employees participate.
Significant accumulated pension assets allow for the diversification of sources of future payments and the reduction of dependence of pension income solely on the state budget.
Denmark received the highest score in the world for the long-term sustainability of the pension system - 84.8 points. In the overall ranking, the country rose from third place in 2025 to second in 2026.
Iceland, which took third place, received 84.3 points for sustainability. Its pension model is characterized by a significant role of accumulation funds and regular contributions.
Singapore, with a score of 82.0 points, became the leader among Asian pension systems. The basis of its model is the Central Provident Fund CPF, through which pension savings and separate other social needs of citizens are funded.
Why high pensions do not always mean a sustainable system
One of the key findings of the study was the identification of significant differences between the current level of pension provision and the system's ability to maintain it in the future.
For example, France received 85.0 points for pension adequacy, but only 49.3 points for long-term sustainability. Its overall result was 70.3 points.
Spain demonstrated a similar situation: 83.0 points for adequacy and only 33.0 points for sustainability. The country's final score was 63.3 points.
Even lower long-term sustainability scores were received by Italy - 27.0 points and Austria - 23.9 points.
For comparison, Kuwait took first place in pension adequacy with a score of 88.3 points, but its overall rating was 72.9 points due to significantly lower results in other criteria.
These data demonstrate one of the main problems of modern pension systems: ensuring an adequate level of payments to current pensioners may be accompanied by an increase in the financial burden on future generations.
What positions do countries of Central and Eastern Europe occupy
The study also includes individual states of Central and Eastern Europe.
Croatia received 66.1 points and a B rating. Poland's score was 58.4 points, corresponding to category C.
Germany took the 25th position with a result of 67.9 points, Portugal received 67.3 points, and Switzerland with 73.6 points ended up in the 11th place in the world.
Among other major economies, the USA received 61.6 points, China - 60.6 points, Japan - 58.0 points.
The lowest result among the 55 evaluated pension systems was recorded in Argentina - 43.7 points.
Turkey received 46.6 points, India - 46.8 points, the Philippines - 49.2 points.
At the same time, the difference between individual countries does not necessarily indicate a corresponding difference in the absolute size of pensions, since the ranking also takes into account demographic, financial, and institutional indicators.
Why Ukraine is absent from the ranking
Ukraine did not make it into the list of 55 pension systems evaluated in the Marsh CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2026. Serbia is also missing from the study.
Accordingly, it is impossible to determine their positions or compare the level of reliability of the Ukrainian pension system with the systems of other countries based on this ranking.
However, the results of the international study are significant for discussing pension reform in Ukraine.
In particular, the experience of countries with high long-term sustainability indicators confirms the importance of diversifying sources of pension income, developing accumulation mechanisms, and proper management of pension assets.
For Ukraine, these issues are particularly relevant due to demographic changes, labor migration, the consequences of full-scale war, and the need to ensure the financial stability of the social protection system.
Meanwhile, the mechanical transfer of foreign pension models without considering the state of the Ukrainian labor market, budgetary capabilities, and financial system does not guarantee similar results.
The main challenge is an aging population
A separate section of the 2026 study is devoted to the problem of an aging population and increasing life expectancy.
The authors note that the decline in birth rates and the increase in the number of years spent on pension are gradually changing the financial model of pension provision.
In many countries, the ratio between the number of working citizens who pay contributions and the number of pension-aged people is decreasing.
This creates additional pressure on state budgets, accumulation funds, and employers.
An important methodological change in the 2026 rating was also the expansion of the assessment of the adequacy of pension incomes with consideration of the provision of people aged 80 years.
This approach allows for the consideration of the risk of depletion of personal savings at an older age, when expenses for medical services and care may increase.
In the opinion of the study's authors, states need to pay more attention to financing future pension obligations, expanding the coverage of the population with pension programs, and creating more flexible mechanisms for retirement.
Traditional pension age limits of 60-65 years are increasingly in need of review in light of the increase in life expectancy and changes in the nature of employment.
What conclusions can be drawn from the rating
The Marsh CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2026 demonstrates that the most balanced pension systems combine a sufficient level of payments with long-term financial sustainability and effective regulation.
At the same time, even countries that have high indicators of current pension provision face risks associated with an aging population and the growth of future financial obligations.
For countries reforming pension provision, including Ukraine, it is important not only to raise today's pensions but also to form a system capable of guaranteeing stable payments over the next decades.
The Marsh CFA Institute Global Pension Index is published annually in cooperation with Marsh, CFA Institute, and Monash Centre for Financial Studies. In 2026, the study first included the Dominican Republic, Kenya, and Qatar. The organizers emphasize that there is no universal model of pension provision, and the effectiveness of systems depends on the economic, demographic, and institutional characteristics of each country.
Source: Marsh CFA Institute Global Pension Index 2026, official report from 20 October 2026.
Full 55 pension systems rating: CFA Institute, 20 October 2026.
