Time Out crowns Melbourne Best City In The World, but methodology raises questions

An annual global ranking named Melbourne the best city in the world, marking the first time an Australian city topped its list. Yet the published methods and comparisons with other city indexes expose a tension between a popularity-driven survey and metrics used by longstanding global indexes.

Melbourne and the 24, 000-person survey

Confirmed: The ranking named Melbourne the best city in the world for the first time, based on a survey of about 24, 000 people that asked respondents about 44 criteria including food, nightlife, affordability, culture, happiness and an overall city vibe. A panel of roughly 100 city experts also contributed selections that were combined with the survey results. Participants came from 42 language backgrounds, and the survey expanded this year to include questions about love, romance and community feel.

Documented: Melbourne’s previous placements in the same ranking were second in 2016 and fourth in 2025. The published account also notes other Australian cities on the list, with Sydney and Adelaide appearing in the top 50 at lower positions than Melbourne.

Best City In The World ranking versus other global city indexes

Confirmed: Other global indexes place Melbourne lower: one reputable weighted global cities index scored Melbourne sixth behind several large U. S. and European cities using five categories — economics, quality of life, human capital, environment and governance. Another global ranking that emphasizes liveability, lovability and prosperity puts Sydney ahead of Melbourne, with Melbourne ranked lower than it appeared on the annual list. A different liveability list put Melbourne at fourth, behind three European cities.

Documented: The published descriptions show these alternate indexes use distinct, quantifiable categories. By contrast, the annual list’s published survey includes subjective measures such as overall vibe and newly added social metrics, producing a different profile of city strengths. That pattern of divergent methods is explicit in the materials accompanying the results.

Melbourne, Sydney and Shanghai: sample sizes and population contrast

Confirmed: The organizers noted about 24, 000 respondents in total and suggested the survey covered roughly 150 cities. A simple hypothetical in the published account shows that, if respondents were evenly distributed across 50 cities, each city would average about 480 participants. The same calculation was used to show that 480 people would represent about 0. 008% of Melbourne’s population and about 0. 001% of Shanghai’s population given the population figures included in the account.

Open question: The context does not confirm how respondents were distributed across cities, nor whether the sample was weighted to reflect city population or other factors. What remains unclear is whether the survey sample for Melbourne was large enough, geographically concentrated in certain neighbourhoods, or skewed toward readers of the platform that hosted the questionnaire.

Documented: The published materials also state that participants were selected randomly from those willing to do the survey and that many respondents were likely readers of the platform that distributed the questionnaire, which underscores the possibility of self-selection in the sample.

Open question: The account does not confirm whether respondents were asked to indicate which city they live in before answering, or whether they could cast votes for other cities. What remains unclear is how much the “overall city vibe” measure reflects broad resident sentiment versus a particular readership’s preferences.

Closing — evidence that would resolve the central question: If the ranking’s organizers confirm the per-city respondent counts, the geographic distribution of respondents and any weighting applied, it would establish whether Melbourne’s top placement rests on a sample with sufficient size and representativeness to support a global comparison. That disclosure would directly resolve whether the result reflects a broad cross-section of urban residents or a narrower, more enthusiasm-driven cohort.