Why it's so difficult to find reliable numbers
The majority of country comparisons circulating on the internet are not based on medical measurements but on self-reports, online surveys or opaque secondary compilations. Such data are systematically biased: people overestimate themselves, measurement methods vary, and samples are rarely representative.
More reliable are clinical studies in which length and girth are measured according to clearly defined protocols, often under pharmacologically induced erection. These studies also have limits, but they at least provide a comparable basis. Important: the figures below are not a ranking but documented means from published work.
Clickbait with sources: Who has the largest penis?
The following list is a collection of studies and meta-analyses that are frequently cited. It is not a quality ranking. Its purpose is to make transparent what data exist and how heterogeneous the measurement basis is.
- Worldwide (meta-analysis, erect; widely cited overall mean): 13.12 cm Veale et al. 2015 (BJU International)
- Africa (pooled mean from several studies): 14.88 cm Belladelli et al. 2023 (World Journal of Men’s Health)
- Europe (pooled mean from several studies): 14.12 cm Belladelli et al. 2023 (World Journal of Men’s Health)
- Asia (pooled mean; very heterogeneous data): 11.74 cm Belladelli et al. 2023 (World Journal of Men’s Health)
- USA (clinical, intracavernous-induced erection; mean ± SE): 13.2 cm ± 0.4 Wang et al. 2009
- Middle East (urological cohort, "skin-to-tip", erect): 12.53 cm Habous et al. 2015
- Jordan (clinical, pharmacologically induced erection): 11.8 cm Awwad et al. 2005
- Egypt (clinically measured, pharmacologically induced erection; specific study setting): 10.37 cm Shalaby et al. 2025
- Germany (Essen; 40–68 years; intracavernous prostaglandin E1 injection): 14.18 cm Schneider et al. 2001
- Iran (clinical, erect; large cohort): 12.2 cm Mehraban et al. 2009
- Australia (clinical, erect; medical cohort): 14.0 cm Smith et al. 2014
- Nigeria (clinical, erect; urology clinic): 14.1 cm Orakwe et al. (Nigerian Journal of Medicine)
- Brazil (clinical, erect; large general population): 14.2 cm Favorito et al. 2008 (Journal of Urology)
- Spain (clinical, erect; urological cohort): 13.9 cm Pérez et al. 2002 (European Urology)
- France (clinical, erect; hospital cohort): 14.2 cm Richters et al. 1999 (European Urology)
- South Korea (clinically measured, erect; nomogram in a urological cohort): 11.88 cm ± 1.32 Park et al. – Penile Nomogram in Korean Males (KoreaMed)
- East Asia (subgroup analysis in a global meta-analysis, erect; pooled range): approx. 11.5–12.5 cm Mostafaei et al. 2024 (Urological Research and Practice)
Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas: What can be said reliably
Even when aggregated data show regional differences in mean values, the distributions overlap considerably. A large proportion of men, regardless of origin, fall within the same range. Origin is therefore not a useful predictor of individual penis size.
Statements about regions with weak data are especially problematic. In large parts of Asia there are few population-based measurement studies. Frequently cited figures there are often based on small clinical samples or self-reports and should be interpreted with caution.
What matters more than length for sex and satisfaction
In practice other factors have a much greater influence on how sex is experienced: arousal, communication, rhythm, trust, lubrication and mutual attention. One centimetre more or less rarely explains whether sex is perceived as fulfilling.
Studies on sexual satisfaction repeatedly show that context and relationship matter more than anatomical single measures. Physical measurements are often overestimated while dynamics and confidence are underestimated.
Preferences of women: what studies actually show
Survey studies on preferences show a consistent pattern: extreme sizes are rarely preferred. Many women report that medium sizes are experienced as more comfortable, versatile and practical in everyday life.
Micropenis: when medical criteria actually matter
The term micropenis is a medical diagnosis, not an everyday category. It is defined using standardized measurements and lies well below the normal range. The vast majority of men who perceive their penis as too small are objectively within the normal spectrum.
If concerns about size dominate daily life, limit sexuality or lead to strong withdrawal, professional counselling can be useful. In many cases the issue is less anatomy than psychological pressure.
What condom manufacturers reveal about real size distributions
Condom manufacturers do not work with myths but with fit. If a condom fits poorly, it is used less often or is more likely to break. That is why there are different nominal widths that are primarily based on girth.
Durex is an illustrative example because their specifications are openly available on product pages. For narrower fits there is, for example, Durex Close Fit with a 49 mm nominal width Durex Close Fit (49 mm). At the same time a product like Durex Gefühlsecht Slim shows that narrower variants often still fall within a range that works as a standard for many, here with 52.5 mm Durex Gefühlsecht Slim (52.5 mm).
This is not proof of regional anatomy. It is a practical indication that relevant variation is often greater in girth than in length and that a large share of demand is concentrated in the mid-range.
Is it true that women in some regions have "smaller vaginas"?
No, there is no reliable scientific evidence for that. The vagina is not a rigid organ with a fixed size but a very stretchable muscle tissue that adapts markedly depending on arousal, relaxation and situation. Statements like "Asian women have smaller vaginas" belong to cultural myths, not medical facts.
What studies show is primarily a large individual range within all populations. Differences between individual women are much larger than average differences between regions. Factors such as muscle tone, hormonal status, arousal, anxiety or relaxation influence the perception of tightness far more than origin.
Again: physical fit is not a static size comparison. Perceived tightness or looseness arises from the interaction of anatomy, arousal, lubrication, pace and communication. Origin or ethnicity are not reliable explanations.
Conclusion
Reputable measurement data do not produce a spectacular world ranking. Regional differences appear in meta-analyses, but they are moderate, highly overlapping and methodologically limited. Origin is not a useful predictor for individuals.
Those who become informed gain primarily one thing: distance from clickbait and false comparisons. What matters are fit, communication, health and the way one relates to one's own body.
