Innovation clusters – whether they be innovation-driven cities or regions – are the beating heart of national innovation systems. Such hubs unite top universities, researchers, inventors, venture capitalists and research and development (R&D) firms in driving forward breakthrough ideas.
From Paris to Mexico City, Shenzhen to Stockholm, Seoul or San Francisco, global cities blend research, startups and R&D firms to power innovation.
Each year, the Global Innovation Index (GII) ranks the top 100 innovation clusters worldwide (Map 1). Employing a bottom-up, data-driven methodology that disregards administrative and political borders, the GII pinpoints those geographic areas that have a high density of inventors, scientific authors and/or venture capital (VC) activity. The clusters identified according to these criteria often span several municipal districts or sub-federal states, and sometimes even two or more countries.
Three metrics are used to define the top 100 clusters globally (see Appendix IV for details and a comparison to earlier methods). The first focuses on the location of inventors listed in published patent applications under the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
(Dedicated cluster briefs are available providing further details about every top 100 cluster.)
Top 10 clusters and other top-tier rankings
Shenzhen–Hong Kong–Guangzhou, Tokyo–Yokohama, and San Jose–San Francisco lead; Paris joins the top 10, Riyadh the top 100
Shenzhen–Hong Kong–Guangzhou (China and Hong Kong, China) tops the global rankings for a second consecutive year, followed by Tokyo–Yokohama (Japan) and San Jose–San Francisco in the United States of America (US) (see Figure 1). All three clusters continue to make a massive contribution to patenting outputs, together accounting for over one in every five PCT applications filed globally. Leading PCT applicants among the top clusters include Huawei (Shenzhen–Hong Kong–Guangzhou), Mitsubishi Electric (Tokyo–Yokohama) and Google (San Jose–San Francisco), with Sun Yat Sen University, the University of Tokyo and Stanford University the respective top publishing organizations.
Seoul in the Republic of Korea and Beijing in China follow in fourth and fifth places, respectively, with Seoul moving up one slot compared to 2025, outpacing Beijing in terms of PCT patent filings and VC deals, even as Beijing retains a commanding lead in scientific publications.
Paris (10th, France) is the most notable entrant to the top 10 since 2025, taking the spot vacated by Los Angeles (United States), which falls to 12th. This marks Paris’s return to the top 10 for the first time since 2022, joining London (8th, United Kingdom) as the only two European clusters at this level. Shanghai–Suzhou (6th, China), New York City (7th) and Boston–Cambridge (9th, both United States) retain their positions in the ranking. Leading PCT applicants among these clusters include Suzhou University (Shanghai–Suzhou), IBM (New York City), Nicoventures Trading (London), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (Boston–Cambridge) and Safran Aircraft Engines (Paris), while top publishing organizations include Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Columbia University, University College London, MIT, and Université Paris-Saclay, respectively. Box 1 examines the top 10 global clusters in respect to each of the three metric indicators, with Asian clusters leading in PCT filings and sweeping in scientific publications, and US and UK clusters showing a high concentration in VC.
Analyzing the top 10 innovation clusters by patents, publications or VC deals reveals distinct patterns and effects (see Box Figure 1.1). A notable example is Seoul’s (Republic of Korea) strength in PCT patent filings and VC deals being outweighed by Beijing’s (China) lead in scientific publications, causing them to swap positions this year to 4th and 5th in the ranking, respectively. Looking at global shares across the three metrics, distinct patterns emerge. First, PCT applications tell a mixed story: Asian clusters dominate, led by Tokyo–Yokohama, Shenzhen–Hong Kong–Guangzhou, and Seoul, alongside three US clusters that include San Jose–San Francisco and San Diego. Paris is the sole European representative. Second, clusters with the most publications remain all Asian, with the majority located in China – with Beijing and Shanghai–Suzhou leading – but with Seoul and Tokyo–Yokohama (Japan) also featuring. Third, in respect to VC deals, the United States claims the most clusters among the top 10, with San Jose–San Francisco and New York City leading, while London (United Kingdom) ranks third, with Seoul, Shenzhen–Hong Kong–Guangzhou, and Singapore also featuring. Beijing, by contrast, records a lower VC share among the top 10 clusters, reflecting the different pathways through which leading innovation economies channel R&D activity.
Beyond the top 10, Philadelphia enters the top 20 in 2026 (20th), whereas Seattle drops out (25th), both in the United States. Within the top 30, Stockholm (30th, Sweden) enters, whereas Berlin (31st, Germany) drops out. The composition of the top 40 and top 50 remains unchanged compared to 2025. Within the top 100, Riyadh (92nd, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) enters for the first time and Fuzhou (96th, China) re-enters, having narrowly fallen outside the top 100 in 2025, whereas Salt Lake City and Ann Arbor, both in the United States, drop out.
Biggest rank movements among the top 100
Within the top 100, the upper tier remains largely stable: the top three innovation clusters (Shenzhen–Hong Kong–Guangzhou, Tokyo–Yokohama, and San Jose–San Francisco) held position, and most clusters shifted by no more than a few places, with a few standing out for sharper swings. Table 1 below highlights some of the most pronounced rank movements that have occurred between GII 2025 and GII 2026 among selected clusters for each of the three metrics.
Ningde (China) recorded the largest rank increase within the top 100, climbing 24 places from 99th to 75th on the strength of growth across all three underlying metrics: PCT filings (+38.7 percent), publications (+24.7 percent) and VC (+50.0 percent). Miami (United States) rose seven places (67th to 60th) on consistently positive, if modest, growth across all three indicators, with VC growth (+12.4 percent) the strongest contributor. Chennai gained five places (84th to 79th), driven by strong PCT growth (+19.2 percent). Daejeon edged up three places (25th to 22nd), with broad growth across all three metrics, particularly in scientific publications (+15.4 percent) and PCT applications (+10.5 percent).
On the downside, Oxford recorded one of the biggest declines, falling seven places (77th to 84th), driven mainly by a contraction in VC growth (−9.4 percent). Istanbul fell six places (58th to 64th) after a sharp contraction in VC growth (−35.5 percent), despite positive publication growth (+6.3 percent). A group of European clusters each slipped by four to five places (Amsterdam–Rotterdam, 22nd to 26th; Copenhagen, 42nd to 46th; Cologne, 43rd to 47th; Oslo, 85th to 89th; and Lyon, 90th to 95th), with a common observation that each recorded a negative publication growth rate, even when either PCT applications or VC deals remained positive, as was the case for Amsterdam–Rotterdam and Cologne.
Innovation clusters by economy
The top innovation cluster for each economy or cross-border region is shown in Table 2. The leading clusters per economy remain unchanged from last year. The one new addition is Saudi Arabia, which joins the table for the first time through Riyadh (92nd), having ranked just outside the top 100 in 2025.
Samsung Electronics stands out as the most prevalent top applicant within the rankings, leading PCT filings in four clusters across four economies: Seoul (4th, Republic of Korea), Bengaluru (24th, India), Moscow (50th, Russian Federation) and Warsaw (91st, Poland). Beyond the top applicant, the five most geographically dispersed applicants – BASF, Ericsson, Huawei, IBM, and Siemens – register patent activity across at least 56 of the top 100 clusters, spanning up to 29 economies, with BASF, Ericsson, and IBM present across all six world United Nations (UN) regions (Figure 2).
Sun Yat Sen University is the only organization to lead scientific publications in more than one cluster, featuring as the top publishing institution in Shenzhen–Hong Kong–Guangzhou (1st, China, Hong Kong, China). Moving beyond the top organization, the five most geographically dispersed publishing organizations are: AstraZeneca, General Electric, Siemens, Pfizer, and Huawei, appearing in at least 30 of the top 100 clusters, spanning up to 21 economies, with AstraZeneca present across all six world UN regions.
China and the United States lead in number of top innovation clusters
China and the United States lead the innovation cluster count for a fourth consecutive year (see Figure 3 and Map 2 a–e). China has 25 clusters (one more than last year); the United States follows with 20 clusters (two fewer than last year).
Germany holds seven clusters within the top 100 in 2026, the most of any European economy, though all but Stuttgart (54th, unchanged) slipped down the rankings. Munich, ranked 28th, dropped one place and is the highest-ranked of the seven, with BMW leading on patents and the Technical University of Munich on publications. Berlin (31st, −1) follows, with Cologne (47th, −4) and Frankfurt am Main (68th, −4) recording the sharpest drops. Stuttgart is anchored by Robert Bosch on patents and the University of Stuttgart on publications, while Frankfurt am Main is led by Merck Patent on patents and Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz on publications. Heidelberg–Mannheim (88th, −1) and Hamburg (93rd, −2) round out Germany’s top 100 presence.
The United Kingdom (UK) retains four clusters among the top 100, with London (8th, unchanged) leading, though the other three all slipped: Cambridge (71st, −2), Oxford (84th, −7) and Manchester (97th, −3), with Oxford recording the sharpest drop among UK clusters this year, driven by a 9.4 percent decline in VC deal activity.
France has two clusters within the top 100, with Paris rising to 10th (+2), a position last held in the GII 2022 edition, whereas Lyon slips to 95th (−5), falling on a decline in VC deals (−3.4 percent) and scientific publications (−1.1 percent).
India maintains four clusters within the top 100, with Mumbai (43rd, +3) and Chennai (79th, +5) both climbing, while Bengaluru (24th, −3) and Delhi (27th, −1) slip slightly. Mumbai in particular consolidates its rise from 46th last year, surging 38 percent higher in PCT applications, while Chennai’s five-place gain – driven by large gains in all three metrics – is the strongest upward movement among Indian clusters this year.
Japan retains three clusters among the top 100, with Tokyo–Yokohama (2nd) and Osaka–Kobe–Kyoto (11th) both holding steady, while Nagoya slips one place to 29th (−1).
The Republic of Korea likewise maintains three clusters, with Seoul (4th, +1) and Daejeon (22nd, +3) both gaining ground compared to 2025, whereas Busan (98th, −3) slips three places.
Canada retains three clusters within the top 100. Toronto, ranked 36th, remains the country’s leading cluster, despite dropping three places, with declines across all three underlying metrics, most notably a 7.5 percent fall in VC deals. Montréal (61st, +1) rose slightly in the rankings, driven by a 6.8 percent growth in PCT applications, while Vancouver (67th, −1) remained broadly stable. Australia maintains two clusters within the top 100, with Sydney (38th, −2) and Melbourne (53rd, −1) both easing back slightly from 2025.
Spain’s Barcelona (44th, +1) and Madrid (48th, −1) broadly hold their ground, as do Italy’s Milan (56th, unchanged) and Rome (81st, +1).
The Kingdom of the Netherlands sees Amsterdam–Rotterdam slip four places to 26th, with Eindhoven (66th, −1) also edging down. Sweden presents a mixed picture, Stockholm climbing to 30th (+2), whereas Göteborg slips three places to 100th.
In addition to China and India, six other middle-income economies have clusters among the top 100. They are as follows:
Brazil (1 cluster), with São Paulo (49th, unchanged);
Egypt (1), with Cairo (86th, –3), the sole top 100 innovation cluster within Africa;
Islamic Republic of Iran (1), with Tehran (65th, –2);
Malaysia (2), with Kuala Lumpur (90th, −4) and Singapore (16th, unchanged) – a cross-border cluster shared with Singapore;
Mexico (1), with Mexico City (82nd, –3), the second cluster within Latin America; and
Türkiye (1), with Istanbul at 64th (–6).
Even though Cairo is the sole African cluster within the top 100, there is innovation activity clustered elsewhere in Africa – see a separate analysis conducted in 2024.
Regional distribution of innovation clusters
Regionally, the top 100 innovation clusters remain concentrated in three broad UN regions. South-eastern Asia, Eastern Asia and Oceania hosts the most clusters of any region (36), followed by Europe (30) and Northern America (23). Together these three broad regions account for 89 of the top 100 innovation clusters. The remaining 11 clusters are spread across Central and Southern Asia (5), Northern Africa and Western Asia (4) and Latin America and the Caribbean (2). Map 2 (a–e) traces the cluster footprint of selected region in greater detail.
Map 2 Top innovation clusters by region, 2026
Top innovation-intensive clusters per capita
San Jose–San Francisco and Cambridge lead; Daejeon (Republic of Korea) enters top 10 for the first time
The GII also ranks the top 100 clusters by innovation intensity – measured as the combined global share of patents, scientific publications, and VC deals, normalized by population (see Appendix IV for methodology).
In the latest 2026 ranking, San Jose–San Francisco (United States) and Cambridge (United Kingdom) retain the top two positions, while Ningde (China) rises to third, up from fourth in 2025, consolidating a remarkable ascent driven by the dominant patent activity of Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL), a global leader in battery technology (Table 3). Boston–Cambridge (United States) and Oxford (United Kingdom) round out the top five, and Daejeon (Republic of Korea) enters the top 10 intensity ranking for the first time, advancing five places to 10th.
The United States leads with four of the top 10 intensity ranked clusters, followed by the United Kingdom with two, and one each in China (Ningde), Finland (Helsinki), the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Eindhoven) and the Republic of Korea (Daejeon). Daejeon’s entry into the top 10, anchored by LG Energy Solution and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology (KAIST), is a notable development, adding a second battery and energy technology hub to the intensity ranking alongside Ningde.
This year’s leading clusters draw on major research institutions, including Stanford, Cambridge, MIT, and Oxford. Patenting activity remains concentrated among firms such as Google, ARM, Microsoft and Qualcomm, while CATL and LG Energy Solution stand out among industrial innovators – reflecting the growing weight of energy and battery technologies in global patenting.
Top 20
Stockholm (Sweden) and Copenhagen (Denmark) hold steady at 11th and 12th, respectively, led by LM Ericsson and Danmarks Tekniske Universitet as the top patent applicants in each cluster. Zürich (Switzerland) and Austin (United States) swap places, with Zürich rising to 13th (+1) and Austin slipping to 14th (–1). Munich (Germany) enters the top 15 intensity ranking for the first time, advancing one place to 15th (+1).
Göteborg (Sweden) advances three places to 17th (+3), driven by an 8.4 percent rise in VC activity per capita, even though patents and publications per capita declined (–5.9 percent, –5.8 percent, respectively); LM Ericsson and Chalmers University of Technology lead its patent and publication output. Beijing (China) declines one spot to 19th (–1): patents and publications per capita both grew (+5.2 percent, +4.9 percent), but VC deals per capita fell by more than half (–56.3 percent); BOE Technology and Tsinghua University remain its leading patent applicant and scientific organization. Hangzhou (China) enters the top 20 intensity ranking for the first time (20th, +5), with growth across all three metrics, patents per capita up 5.7 percent, publications up 19.0 percent and VC deals up 13.1 percent, all anchored by Zhejiang University.
Top 30
Oslo (Norway) holds on to 21st position, despite a marked decline across all three metrics (patents –9.9 percent, publications –5.8 percent, VC –7.1 percent), led by Oslo University Hospital in patents and the University of Oslo in scientific publications. Philadelphia (United States) enters the top 30 for the first time, in 2026 (28th, +4), propelled by a significant 18.7 percent jump in VC activity per capita, even though publications slipped slightly (–1.4 percent); the University of Pennsylvania leads both its patenting and publication output. Vancouver (Canada) slips two places to 29th (–2), with declines across all three metrics (patents –2.9 percent, publications –6.4 percent, VC –5.1 percent), led throughout by the University of British Columbia.
Top 50
Four clusters enter the top 50, in 2026, each of which is growth-led: Xi’an (China, 42nd, +15), patents and publications up 9.1 percent and 12.8 percent, respectively, and VC surging off a very low base, led by Xi’an Jiaotong University in publications; Chengdu (China, 46th, +13), broad-based growth across all three metrics (+23.7 percent, +24.8 percent, +24.2 percent, respectively), led by Sichuan Kelun-biotech Biopharmaceutical in patents and Sichuan University in publications; Heidelberg–Mannheim (Germany, 47th, +5), up in VC (+10.4 percent) and patents (+4.5 percent), despite a 2.6 percent dip in publications; and Miami (United States, 50th, +5), VC-led (+8.7 percent), with the University of Miami leading both patenting and publications.
Different paths to innovation intensity among top clusters
Across the full ranking of 100 clusters, the underlying drivers of innovation intensity vary considerably, the pattern looking different depending on the metric (Figure 4). In respect to PCT patent applications per capita, Ningde (China), San Jose–San Francisco (United States) and Eindhoven (Kingdom of the Netherlands) hold the top three positions, and patent leadership tracks closely overall ranking: nine of the 10 most patent-intensive clusters sit inside the top 25 overall, with only Tokyo–Yokohama (27th) breaking that pattern. VC deals per capita show the same degree of concentration, led by San Jose–San Francisco, Cambridge (United Kingdom) and Boston–Cambridge (United States); all 10 most VC-intensive clusters rank inside the top 18 overall.
Scientific publications per capita tells a different story. Cambridge and Oxford lead at 32,247 and 31,868 per million inhabitants, respectively, far ahead of any other cluster; but the rest of the publication leaderboard is far more dispersed than for either patents or VC. Four of the 10 most publication-intensive clusters globally rank outside the top 25 by intensity: Changsha (34th overall, 19,511 per million), Xi’an (42nd, 18,605), Nanjing (37th, 16,191) and Wuhan (48th, 13,716). A top 25 view misses this entirely: publications is the only metric of the three where genuine global leadership sits well outside the leading composite rankings, pointing to a distinct cohort of science-driven clusters whose research output far outpaces its patenting and VC activity.
This divergence produces markedly different cluster profiles, which are visible across the full ranking rather than only at the top:
Cambridge and Oxford (both United Kingdom), Boston–Cambridge (United States) and Göteborg (Sweden) stand out as the most balanced clusters within the top 25, in terms of rank spreads across the three metrics. Zürich (Switzerland), Copenhagen (Denmark), Helsinki (Finland), Hangzhou (China) and Raleigh (United States) also represent broadly balanced clusters, as do Montréal (Canada, 57th) and Brussels–Antwerp (Belgium, 60th) much further down the ranking.
Ningde (China) continues to lead in PCT applications per capita (over 16,000), yet has minimal scientific output and VC activity. Similar patterns are evident in Eindhoven (Kingdom of the Netherlands), Munich and Stuttgart (both Germany), Daejeon (Republic of Korea) and an entire trio of Japanese clusters, Nagoya, Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto and Tokyo-Yokohama.
Austin (United States), London (United Kingdom) and New York City (United States) all excel in VC deal activity, but are relatively low ranking when it comes to global publications, a pattern now joined by Miami (United States, 50th overall).
Chinese clusters Changchun, Changsha, Chengdu, Harbin, Nanjing, Wuhan, and Xi’an have solid publication activity, but are relatively low ranking in terms of patent and VC deal activity.
This variation highlights that there are distinct innovation models at play. These range from science-driven ecosystems to patent-intensive industrial hubs and VC-heavy startup centers, each representing a unique path to innovation.
Helsinki and Eindhoven lead the European Union in innovation cluster intensity
Helsinki (8th, Finland) and Eindhoven (9th, Kingdom of the Netherlands) emerge as the highest-ranking clusters within the European Union (EU) (Table 3). They are followed by EU clusters Stockholm (11th, Sweden), Copenhagen (12th, Denmark) and Munich (15th, Germany). With five EU clusters now among the top 15 by intensity, the EU’s presence among innovation-intensive hubs has strengthened compared to 2025. The United Kingdom is an outstanding performer within Europe more generally, with Cambridge (2nd), Oxford (5th) and London (18th) consistently ranking among the most intensive innovation hubs globally.
When focusing on innovation intensity – which accounts for patent filings, scientific publications and VC deals relative to population – Northern American clusters continue to outperform their Asian and EU counterparts, especially with respect to higher VC activity. This underscores a persistent difference between these two contrasting regional innovation models. European clusters, by contrast, derive their intensity from having a more balanced integration of research excellence, patenting activity and VC, with Cambridge, Copenhagen, Göteborg, Helsinki, Oxford and Zürich exemplifying this multi-dimensional strength in 2026. On the other hand, Northern America excels in commercialization and VC activity, accounting for eight of the top 25 innovation-intensive clusters. This includes three of the five clusters with the highest VC intensity: namely, San Jose–San Francisco, Boston–Cambridge, and Austin, which are all located in the United States.
Scale versus intensity
Not every top-ranked innovation cluster has achieved its position for the same reason. Some excel through sheer volume of innovation output, whereas others perform well above their weight relative to population size. This section takes a closer look at these two dimensions.
Only two clusters are among both the global top 10 and the top 10 by innovation intensity – San Jose–San Francisco and Boston–Cambridge – a status that remains unchanged from last year. Both are located in the United States. Expanding to include the top 25, a further eight clusters appear in both rankings: San Diego, Seattle, and New York City (all United States), Beijing and Hangzhou (both China), Daejeon and Seoul (both Republic of Korea) and London (United Kingdom). Their presence across both rankings underscores that the most prolific innovation clusters are in many cases also among the most intensive relative to population. Daejeon’s appearance in both rankings, driven by LG Energy Solution and KAIST, echoes the rise of Ningde in the intensity ranking, pointing to the growing global weight of battery and energy technology clusters in innovation output.
Figure 5 extends this comparison across the full ranking, classifying all 100 clusters according to two distinct dimensions of competitiveness: scale, reflected in the global ranking; and intensity, reflected in the per-capita ranking. The resulting distribution is notably symmetric: 34 clusters rank in the top half in both dimensions, the scale and intensity leaders; and an equal number rank in the bottom half in both dimensions, the emerging group; while the rest split evenly between the scale- and intensity-driven profiles, with 16 in each.
Regional patterns reinforce the point. Northern America shows the highest concentration of leadership, with 12 of its 23 clusters – just over half – ranking among the scale and intensity leaders, whereas Europe supplies the majority of intensity-driven clusters (nine of 16), having specialized hubs, such as Oxford and Cambridge, that achieve outsized per-capita output, despite a modest absolute scale. The scale-driven quadrant, meanwhile, is largely populated by clusters located in highly populous economies, including Delhi, Bengaluru and Shanghai–Suzhou, the same high-volume, lower-intensity pattern already evident in China’s national figures.
Göteborg (Sweden) shows the widest gap of all, ranking 100th globally, but 17th by intensity (Figure 6). Oxford and Cambridge (both United Kingdom), Ningde (China, 75th globally, but 3rd by intensity), Oslo (Norway), Eindhoven (Kingdom of the Netherlands), Pittsburgh (United States), Helsinki (Finland) and Dublin (Ireland) show the same pattern, with the intensity rank far outpacing the global rank. These are largely university towns and single-company clusters whose modest absolute scale conceals an outsized per-capita footprint.
Delhi (India) exhibits the largest gap running the opposite way, ranking 27th globally, but 96th by intensity. Shanghai–Suzhou (China) and Bengaluru (India) follow closely, each with a 59-place gap, then Mumbai (India), Taipei–Hsinchu (Taiwan Province of China) and São Paulo (Brazil). The pattern repeats across Brazil, China, and India’s biggest innovation hubs.
