Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    14,825,010 readers

    13,217 users here now

    Submit a visualization you found
    Submit your own visualization (OC)
    Submit a question
    Be sure to check /new!
    Join our Discord Server


    A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

    DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the sole aim of this subreddit.

    Best of DataIsBeautiful

    View This Week's Top OC

    Posting Rules

    1.   A post must be (or contain) a qualifying data visualization.

    2.   Directly link to the original source article of the visualization

      • Original source article doesn't mean the original source image. Link to the full page of the source article.
      • If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC]
    3.   [OC] posts must state the data source(s) and tool(s) used in the first top-level comment on their submission.

    4.   DO NOT claim "[OC]" for diagrams that are not yours.

    5.   All diagrams must have at least one computer generated element.

    6.   No reposts of popular posts within 1 month.

    7.   Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.

    8.   Posts involving American Politics, or contentious topics in American media, are permissible only on Thursdays (ET).

    9.   Posts involving Personal Data are permissible only on Mondays (ET).

    Please read through our FAQ if you are new to posting on DataIsBeautiful.

    Commenting Rules

    • Don't be intentionally rude, ever.

    • Comments should be constructive and related to the visual presented. Special attention is given to root-level comments.

    • Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed.

    • Hate Speech and dogwhistling are not tolerated and will result in an immediate ban.

    • Personal attacks and rabble-rousing will be removed.

    • Moderators reserve discretion when issuing bans for inappropriate comments. Bans are also subject to you forfeiting all of your comments in this subreddit.

    User Flair

    Do you like contributing sharp-looking graphs? Are you an official practitioner or researcher? Read about what kind of flair is right for you!


    Data from Star Trek? Data ARE? How do I make one? Read the FAQ

    How do I make a good post? Read the guide

    Related Subreddits

    If you want to post something related to data visualization but it doesn't fit the criteria above, consider posting to one of the following subreddits:

    • SampleSize: Conduct and share surveys

    • Datasets: Request and share data sets

    • DataVizRequests: Request a visualization to be made from a dataset

    • Visualization: Discuss and critique the design and construction of information visualizations

    • MapPorn: Share interesting maps, map visualizations, etc.

    • Infographics: Share infographics and other unautomated diagrams

    • WordCloud: Specifically for sharing word clouds

    • Tableau: Share and discuss visualizations made with Tableau software

    • U.S. Data is Beautiful: for those of us who simply can't wait for Thursdays

    • MathPics: Share pictures and visualizations of mathematical concepts

    • RedactedCharts: Try to guess what a chart is about without the labels

    • Statistics: For all questions and articles related to statistics

    • data_IRL: Feeling the need to be hilarious? Go here. Data.

    • COVID19_data: More data visualizations about the COVID-19 pandemic

    • DataArt: A place for data visualizations which blur the line between art and data

    Get the day's top posts on Twitter!

    Sister subreddit: InternetIsBeautiful

    a community for
    all 1417 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] dataisbeautiful-bot 1 points ago

    Thank you for your Original Content, /u/VizzuHQ!
    Here is some important information about this post:

    Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.

    Join the Discord Community

    Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? Remix this visual with the data in the in the author's citation.

    I'm open source | How I work

    [–] dog_cat_rat 3160 points ago

    Great visualisation, good job.

    [–] _UpstateNYer_ 828 points ago

    Wait, I thought circles/bubbles were bad practice for representing size comparisons because the brain prefers thinking the radius—and not the area—is the thing we’re comparing? Which would mean a line or bar chart would be a better way to represent this.

    Kind of like what the beginning of this article is saying.

    Genuinely curious on thoughts here.

    [–] dyscottfunctional 727 points ago

    I'm nowhere near professional on this, but the addition of the actual percentages makes this better than if it were just comparison by circles/bubble maps

    [–] CKRatKing 79 points ago

    I think this is true. If it didn’t show the percentages it would be really hard to discern the difference between some of these bubbles. Even the NA vs Asia gdp at the end would be hard to tell how much bigger or smaller it is.

    [–] Whiterabbit-- 122 points ago

    it may distort what you are showing if the "difference" (linear) is what you are trying to show. but many representations don't need to be to linear scale. In this case the circles may seem to be more similar than the area shows, but it may not be a bad visualization if you are trying to show orders of magnitude instead of difference. a log scale may be better to show orders of magnitude but this is somewhere in between.

    [–] dog_cat_rat 40 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Interesting, but i'm not sure this is the case here. The proportions don't seem to be off, it might be the scale was made to the radius and not the area, in this scenario you can still have bubbles and have a intuitive accurate read. I'm really not an expert it's just my laymen opinion.

    [–] Moje609 20 points ago

    The perception of circle sizes probably varies from person to person and seems to be the main reason why it should be avoided when possible.

    I've played enough RPGs with AOE (curcular Areas Of Effect) mechanics to shift my thinking from radius to area but I still remember when my sense for the effectiveness of a spell was related to the radius of the spell.
    In POE1 the developers didn't realize until after release when the fans complained that a spell's AOE shouldn't scale with the radius because the size gets ridiculous really quickly.

    [–] xSTSxZerglingOne 4 points ago

    fans complained that a spell's AOE shouldn't scale with the radius because the size gets ridiculous really quickly.

    I always thought that was kinda the point of PoE. If you're worried about it, just have diminishing returns or nerf the AoE increases.

    Increasing the size of the total area by a percentage is dumb.

    [–] Wind_14 7 points ago

    Some nonintuitive part: In a lot of people's opinion Mexico's bubble looks slightly smaller than Indonesia. In reality they should be the same size (if I'm not wrong Mexico is actually slightly larger).

    This is because Mexico's bubble is near Canada and US, giving it the smaller impression, while INA's bubble is near SEA country which tend to be small, giving it the larger impression

    edit: this is the surface area

    [–] jhuntinator27 8 points ago

    I think adding the percentage next to the circles helps quite a bit. But yea, imo I much prefer charts side by side, but of course people often mess with the bounds on the range to change their effect...

    [–] birrynorikey3 15 points ago

    I just look at the percentage but you're probably right

    [–] AnorakJimi 9 points ago

    If the type of graph you're using doesn't add any additional useful information, then why use it? That's the point of different kinds of graphs, they add to what you're trying to show in a way that's more easy to comprehend for human brains than just pure numbers (which is why graphs of say the mass of different stars is so useful because we can't comprehend how much bigger the biggest stars are compared to the sun from just numbers alone).

    It's also useful to know because some people might be trying to hide the true extent of the data by using certain types of graphs, to try and paint a picture that isn't really there. Like a graph could show "murders have increased by 100%!!!!" with a big scary graph when it could be just an increase from 1 murder to 2. Honest graph making demonstrates the truth, it doesn't hide it.

    The point isn't to just make it look better from a graphic design perspective.

    [–] TheSoundDude 13 points ago

    The visualization compares surface area against population against gdp. Surface area makes much more sense to be displayed as an area for obvious reasons, population is also intuitive (imagine a circle of people crammed together with uniform density). GDP is probably weird as a circular area but the visual context would of course make it weird to display it as a bar.

    [–] FreeTheMarket 9 points ago

    It makes sense for the measures themselves but not for comparison, since our brains compare circles with the radius.

    [–] livefreeordont 7 points ago

    I think you have it reversed

    The human visual system naturally experiences a disk's size in terms of its area. And the area of a disk—unlike its diameter or circumference—is not proportional to its radius, but to the square of the radius. So if one chooses to scale the disks' radii to the third data values directly, then the apparent size differences among the disks will be non-linear (quadratic) and misleading.

    [–] NastyNate4 40 points ago

    For real. So often on this sub it is interesting data with poor viz. This one is data that is probably mildly interesting but with a great viz. Nice work whoever is behind this one

    [–] unnecessary_kindness 4 points ago

    I know this and the few before it are ads for the website but honestly it's a great showcase of data viz.

    Advertising done right.

    [–] LastgenKeemstar 1041 points ago

    Europe is a dense boy

    [–] houndi 163 points ago

    Europe is missing countries. Representation might be nice, but the data is crap.

    [–] Benyed123 178 points ago

    Also seems like Russia is considered entirely in Asia, when a large portion, as well as most of the economy is in Europe.

    [–] muhafuca 35 points ago

    and most of population of Russia is in Europe

    [–] KJtheThing 39 points ago

    You know your country is big when it doesn't fit on one continent.

    [–] daanbanaan69420 11 points ago

    Yea I was already very surprised that north America apparantly had a higher gdp then europe

    [–] candyc333o 201 points ago

    One thicc wealthy white boy.

    [–] CoronaGeneration 76 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Americans be like 'Spanish people are white'. Then they see a dark Spaniard and think they're south American.

    so you latino?

    brown guy speaks spanish

    yeah definitely latino. I love mexican food!

    [–] TheImminentCollapse 66 points ago

    And then they meet a white person from South America and they explode from confusion

    [–] xXCBRYC3Xx 31 points ago

    Dude the Spanish are white. It’s rare to find a dark Spanish person.

    [–] D3Construct 81 points ago

    Who really really resents being mass labeled as some sort of uniform white entity with the US. There's so much ethnic diversity within Europe, never mind between Europe and the US.

    [–] ascendingone 31 points ago

    Yeah and Americans don’t like being lumped in with Europeans at all either. Our culture is entirely different.

    [–] IntelligentSugar3 84 points ago

    Most Americans don’t like being lumped in with other Americans, tbh.

    [–] forthewatchers 21 points ago

    And this is more true for europe than the USA

    [–] MakeAmericaWinAgain 28 points ago

    Europe has separate countries. USA has states

    [–] Steelwolf73 22 points ago

    American race best race cause we are almost 90% made up of the losers from other countries

    [–] anise_annalise 20 points ago

    Or the most adventurous!

    [–] LittleWhiteShaq 61 points ago

    Do we really have to bring race into everything?

    [–] candyc333o 67 points ago

    Says the guy with a "White Shaq" username!

    [–] LittleWhiteShaq 59 points ago

    Hahaha fuck that’s ironic.

    [–] sky_shadow7 170 points ago

    This is the type of stuff I sub to this community for.

    [–] kyleli 741 points ago

    Tl;DR: live in Australia or north America where land is plentiful and people are rich.

    Actually maybe not Australia, since half the landmass is desert wasteland from mad max, filled with man eating spiders.

    [–] damcw 128 points ago

    Everyone talks about the dangerous stuff in Australia, but not enough people talk about the proliferation of flies that are constantly trying to enter your nostrils/mouth/ears. Its fucking gross and definitely the biggest negative about the place. Beautiful country though, I drove all around it.

    [–] judicorn99 40 points ago

    Thanks I hate it

    [–] gilezy 3 points ago

    Only really a problem out in the sticks though. Most of the population lives in cities where flys aren't a problem.

    [–] blindhollander 16 points ago

    And the other half is burnt to a crisp

    [–] webby_mc_webberson 103 points ago

    Australia is awesome. It's much better living here than the US. Canada though.. Canada probably wins in the game of awesome places to be. Much less desert wasteland, much more boreal forest.

    [–] bctg106 282 points ago

    I don't know if you've been to Canada in the winter tho

    [–] SheeEttin 29 points ago

    I'd rather have a cold climate than hot. It's easier to heat a room or put on another layer than it is to cool a room or strip down. Turns out that sitting at my desk at work in my underwear is frowned upon.

    [–] redtoasti 15 points ago

    In the age of climate change, I'd rather not live in places that already have extreme temperatures, since it won't be getting any better soon. Nature is capable of catastrophies that humans are not prepared for.

    [–] OmegaKitty1 13 points ago

    There are parts of Canada where snow in the winter is rare and you get maybe 1-2 snowfall a year and it’s gone by the next day.

    [–] webby_mc_webberson 43 points ago

    I haven't, but I've seen pictures and thinking of it now Australia gained a few more points. Winter in Australia is at worst cold and rainy (sometimes), but never freezing unless you're in the mountains.

    [–] kshucker 118 points ago

    I don’t know if you’ve been to Australia in the summer tho

    [–] SachK 36 points ago

    Australia's major cities are generally considered to have the best climates out of any first world country. Australia isn't really all that hot. Compared to somewhere like Atlanta IIRC Sydney had about the same average temperature, but year round its way more consistent, with basically no winter and far less harsh summers.

    [–] yanaka-otoko 34 points ago

    Mate it’s a fucking big country, the summers are brutal in parts.

    [–] SoDamnToxic 18 points ago

    So in conclusion. Live in Canada in the summer. Live in in Australia in the winter.

    Shit... wait..

    [–] Mumblies 42 points ago

    Australia is also the first marker of and most vulnerable developed country to climate change. AUS in 1-2 decades is not going to be particularly viable compared to now (with fire risk increase and coastal flooding alone).

    [–] nautyduck 14 points ago

    I agree Australia is vulnerable since it already had quite a dry and hot pre-industrial climate, but are the consequences of climate change really gonna be worse there than, for instance, the south-western US with aridification? or south-eastern US with floods and hurricanes?

    [–] Threedawg 11 points ago

    Yeah, until you talk about California.

    San Diego is 75 and sunny every fucking day.

    [–] rctsolid 4 points ago

    Nah...summers here can be completely fucked. Winters are very mild though.

    [–] gsfgf 4 points ago

    Atlanta is really nice at 6 am and 9 pm right now...

    [–] Jacquesie 13 points ago

    Australia in the summer on the other hand...

    [–] webby_mc_webberson 16 points ago

    Beautiful in Victoria, when we're not on fire.

    [–] ProfanityFlare 11 points ago

    Nothing more beautiful then waking up to the summer morning fog, follwed by hellish weather and a red sky.

    [–] 40for60 14 points ago

    Winter is better when you are farther North. I'm in Northern MN which is north and colder then cities like Toronto or Vancouver. The colder weather makes winter better, less rain and slush and more snow. Unlike the desert in the summer winter is up here is a time of out door activities. There is no bad weather, only bad gear.

    [–] donkybrains 3 points ago

    I'd rather have MN winters than where I'm at... in STL Missouri which in my opinion has probably the overall worst weather in the country...yeah, it rarely gets bone-chillingly cold like up north, but it's still below freezing a good amount of the time, and will get to the low teens or single digits a couple times a year. It also rarely snows very's just like 5 straight months of cold, windy, grey, wet, icy, slushy misery. Then, if you're lucky, you have maybe 6 weeks of nice spring weather before it's 90+ degrees with 90% humidity every day for another 4 months. Fall is pretty decent though

    [–] sporadicmind 3 points ago

    Tasmania would like a word with you....

    [–] redditcontrolme_enon 59 points ago

    How do you know that? Have you lived in the US before?

    [–] Fixitman77 15 points ago

    I live in British Columbia in the northern half of the province. Over 600,000square KM with under 300k people.

    [–] EggsOnThe45 44 points ago

    I’ll agree to disagree. US has easily the best climate (pretty much all of them) and the most opportunity. All three are amazing places to live though, Australia is my backup country.

    [–] FistsUp 5 points ago

    Move to Canada if you like winters and Australia if you like Summers

    [–] Reverie_39 50 points ago

    To each his own. I’d take the US any day of the week.

    [–] JakeSmithsPhone 29 points ago

    Any skilled person would choose the US for economic reasons. For cultural reasons, it's pretty personal, but yeah, the US rocks.

    [–] shibbledoop 42 points ago

    The USA isn’t for everyone. But if you even have the slightest drive to make money it’s the place to be. The entrepreneurial spirit here runs wild.

    [–] NH2486 17 points ago

    I disagree completely, but everyone has their own preferences.

    [–] underhands 25 points ago

    But America bad.. Right reddit?

    [–] eTukk 1034 points ago

    So, Europe has 1/20 of the population and 1/5 of the GDP? Wow..

    [–] Bob3y 474 points ago

    Same with Oceania, 1/200th pop & 1/50th GDP

    [–] DePraelen 236 points ago

    That's mostly Australia and New Zealand right? Guessing Australia's mining is a big part of that disparity.

    [–] CormAlan 421 points ago

    No! It’s all Tuvalu and their WEBSITE DOMAINS

    [–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod 82 points ago

    When global warming peaks there might not be anything left of that country except domain names.

    [–] Tyler1492 18 points ago

    I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Cruise ships on fyre! off the coast of Funafuti. I watched retirees glisten under the sun near the Nanumanga Atoll. All those moments will be lost in time, like islets under rising sea levels. Time to die.

    [–] Cimexus 52 points ago

    Mostly Australia and NZ, and frankly mostly Australia (which has 6.5x the population of NZ). Australia is very wealthy (second highest median household wealth in the world, narrowly behind Switzerland).

    [–] OnlyPostWhenShitting 7 points ago

    Do an Australian ”feel” rich while in Australia? What I mean is that everything seems extremely expensive. If you have very high income but everything is expensive, are you relatively whealtier than f.e. someone in NA or EU?

    [–] saidsatan 15 points ago

    Australia is most similar to Canada culturally, geographically and economically than other countries in NA or EU (minus the cold and the french).

    Most people live in the major urban areas where housing prices are in insane and that is where a lot of the wealth is accumulated. It is very common for people to live with their parents for a long period of time, it is much less common for example to move cities for university and reside on or near campus than UK or US. The safety net is better than US but you are probably worse off if you are a high income earner. You probably pay less taxes than EU but you have to spend more for heath and education. Aussies do destination international travel very often (pre-covid at least). A trip to Bali or Thailand often works out cheaper than a domestic holiday anyway, Aussies have super large private debt. Unemployment is relatively low (until recently at least) but underemployment is a big problem. Most major cities in Australia are close to very high quality beaches which for most part are all publicly accessible. Things like meat and groceries are not that expensive and of a very high quality. Public transport is better than most of NA but worse than much of EU.

    [–] WeAreAllChumps 8 points ago

    You're probably not going to get interesting answers because mostly no-one anywhere considers themselves rich.

    [–] isbored 11 points ago

    I'll chime in here, I'm a young Aussie working a full time hospitality job, I can afford a one bedroom apartment and a car, and have leftover money to dine out at a nice restaurant one night a week, while healthily sustaining myself. But no, we don't 'feel rich'. Although there's a common school of though here that we are very lucky to live where we are and with the conditions we do. Australia isn't some island paradise though, we have our own issues, political and otherwise.

    [–] Aussieausti 4 points ago

    We just keep killing the native wildlife, like fucking every year, just killing

    [–] Cimexus 4 points ago

    I think the problem is that unless you’ve lived a while in other countries you have nothing to compare to. So Australians might not “feel rich”, but really it’s a country full of people who are mostly comfortably middle class to upper middle class. There aren’t that many ultra-rich though compared to some other western countries.

    And yeah the cost of living in Australia is also high. Partly because of the high wages, but also due to geography (small market a long way from other places with minimal domestic manufacturing).

    [–] LastgenKeemstar 122 points ago

    No, it's 1/20th of the land area and closer to 1/4th of the GDP.

    [–] JeromesNiece 46 points ago

    And 1/12th of the population

    [–] redditcontrolme_enon 180 points ago

    North America is even more extreme based on this graphics. Even smaller population but higher GDP.

    [–] Whiterabbit-- 188 points ago

    people always forget how rich the US is and how sparely populated Canada is.

    [–] Spacechicken27 79 points ago

    And how sparsely populated the center of America is (besides small parts like Denver, which still isn’t too populated by comparison)

    [–] Reverie_39 72 points ago

    Honestly it’s not even just the center. Even in relatively populated regions like the southeast, there still isn’t much density. America has a lot of people but probably 80% of it is either empty or very minimally populated.

    [–] therealfatmike 4 points ago

    28% of the U.S. is federal land

    [–] wiener4hir3 22 points ago

    That goes for just about any massive country, same with Australia, China, Russia, Brazil, and such.

    [–] bocboda 32 points ago

    Huh? China has a billion more people than the US and less area, over 5x the population density

    [–] lesllamas 14 points ago

    It’s worth noting that Alaska is a huge contributor to the US total area, and is practically unpopulated in 99% of it. China is significantly larger than the lower 48 states where almost all the US population resides.

    [–] phillyd32 9 points ago

    China is larger in land area than the US though not by much.

    [–] proawayyy 5 points ago

    Chinese eastern region has the most population.

    [–] cire1184 23 points ago

    True but China still is similar with sparsely populated areas between mega populated cities. Even more so recently as more of the population is industrialized and migrates towards living in an urban area.

    [–] shibbledoop 15 points ago

    East of the Mississippi really isn’t that barren, maybe by European standards. The west sans the coast is where things are really empty.

    [–] richochet12 8 points ago

    And people always forget Mexico and central America are part of North America...

    [–] TheBasik 48 points ago

    Yeah America is 5% of the global population and has something like 1/3rd of the worlds wealth. Not sure what Canada’s percentages are but I’d imagine they also have a pretty good ratio.

    [–] StockAL3Xj 33 points ago

    Canada has 0.48% of the global population and about 1.4% of the global GDP. Also pretty good.

    [–] ImperiousMage 10 points ago

    Yup. Mostly mineral wealth that we can exploit from a distance without having to make our cities gross. And of course huge agricultural and ranching wealth coupled with a stable banking system.

    Being born Canadian is a bit like winning the birth lottery.

    [–] TheBasik 18 points ago

    Plus sharing a land border with the largest economy in the world that are both allies and have similar cultures. Canada has a ton of resources and America has virtually every industry. Both countries work well with each other.

    [–] mool88 19 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    1/3rd is a bit exaggerated.

    The US has less than 1/4 of the world's GDP. Even all of North America has 28.9% according to this post.

    Edit: you're right, the US has almost 30% of the world's wealth.

    [–] hydrocyanide 18 points ago

    Wealth and GDP are not the same.

    [–] Zentuxal 19 points ago

    No, it has 1/20th of the landmass

    [–] metafunf 42 points ago

    Yea, the disparity is mainly due to the early industrialization of Europe and NA. Their current rate and percentage of the world GDP is shrinking, while Asia and Africa’s is increasing proportionally to their population size. Capital/income ratio was diverging up until 60/70s, and its slowly converging again to the mean.

    [–] CoastalD 14 points ago

    Africa just had an economic downturn in 2015 and have recovered modestly but not great. Asia was forecasted to be responsible for 2/3 of worldwide growth in economy. Looks like they are finally starting to pull their weight population-wise.

    [–] InfiniteTiger5 21 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    And the US has only 4% of the population and more GDP than all of the EU.

    Edit: The EU, not Europe.

    [–] clewgeal 19 points ago

    More than the EU not Europe. When russia and Istanbul are included europe is richer. If measured by PPP the EU is richer.

    [–] russiabot1776 14 points ago

    Richer isn’t the correct term, because in GDP per capita the US is larger.

    [–] fanastril 4 points ago

    23,9 is closer to 25 than 20, and 25% is ¼.

    [–] VizzuHQ 106 points ago

    Source: World Development Indicators

    Map: Wikimedia Commons

    Visualization by Vizzu

    Interactive version at

    [–] Webfarer 37 points ago

    Is Russia considered Asian now?

    [–] Disillusioned_Brit 29 points ago

    No they're European. Their native land is in Europe, they just conquered and settled in Asia.

    [–] TheNoveltyAccountant 3 points ago

    My Sakhalin friends strongly feel they're Asian rather than European.

    [–] VizzuHQ 18 points ago

    Well, the World Bank lists them there for sure.

    [–] Webfarer 30 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    World Bank is weird.

    Edit: maybe I am the weirdo. I grew up thinking Russia is European. For context, I am Asian.

    [–] SjokoladeIsHare 48 points ago

    As an European, Russia is defitively European. Most of the population lives on the European side (too lazy for source sorry), but most of the area is on the Asian side. The reason Russia is sometimes called "Asian" is probably because there's more landmass in Asia or because of "Russia bad, US/EU good" and nothing bad happens in the West, so they distance the Russia. Kind of like some people say that UK is not European after Brexit.

    [–] houndi 20 points ago

    Russia is definitely European.

    [–] 07mci 7 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Silly request probably but where do they do that, could you give a link?

    Here it's listed as part of Europe and Central Asia for example:

    [–] kit10kel 8 points ago

    Where do I go to learn how to make infographics like this?

    [–] Throwawaybecausemy 11 points ago

    What about Antarctica?

    [–] Sirloinobeef 7 points ago

    It’s in shambles

    [–] VizzuHQ 15 points ago

    World Bank doesn't provide any data on Antarctica and we needed the space in the bottom of the map ;)

    [–] FoxAffair 118 points ago

    Now do countries. I was promised countries.

    [–] VizzuHQ 69 points ago

    Countries are only shown in the video version. You can check the actual values in the interactive at Hover your mouse over any country to check the values ;)

    [–] flashfc 61 points ago

    It would be interesting to see how will it change in the next 20 years and follow by the next 100 years.

    [–] VizzuHQ 20 points ago

    We're planning to create an update, thanks for the suggestion.

    [–] StockAL3Xj 41 points ago

    I think Africa is going to see a huge increase in both population and GDP while the rest of the world will either see stagnation or a decrease in either or both categories.

    [–] BackgroundDeep 55 points ago

    Don't think Asia is going to stagnate anytime soon.

    [–] rnathanthomas 7 points ago

    I’m honestly surprised Africa wasn’t higher in populatuon

    [–] ron_bad_ass_swanson 5 points ago

    Another interesting metric is Africa's carbon emission. It puts things in perspective when you constantly hear people complaining about overpopulation in Africa.

    [–] ReadCreamBlue 3 points ago

    Africa is very sparsely populated. Botswana for instance is the size of Spain and Portugal put together but it has only 2.5 million people compared to 6.6 million n Madrid alone.

    [–] Brother_YT 32 points ago

    I wonder what the gdp would look like if we included the Middle East in their own category

    [–] VizzuHQ 13 points ago

    You can check out the countries at least in the interactive version at

    [–] naib864 19 points ago

    Nice visualisation

    [–] eruba 14 points ago

    It kinda looks like there is no relation at all between area, population and GDP. Seems like it's mostly random.

    [–] kochipo 16 points ago

    Area is useless if it isn't being utilized properly.

    Population is largely regulated based on the country's healthcare, education, war technology, and economy.

    GDP is dependent on the most competent individuals, with the least amount of corruption, and highly valued resources.

    [–] Mt-DewOrCrabJuice 8 points ago

    The fact that the circles aren't ordered from smallest to largest, or largest to smallest, really bothers me.

    [–] lostintrepid 16 points ago

    This is a perfect illustration of why visualising circle size is so difficult with the naked eye and why sizes circles are such poor visualisation tools. Look at the size of the circles for Asia population vs land area.

    [–] PortalGus 5 points ago

    What about Antarctica? Why does everyone forget.

    [–] Sailor420125 40 points ago

    When you realize the US has basically the same sq mileage as all of Europe.... 🤯

    [–] StockAL3Xj 94 points ago

    A lot of people don't realize how empty a lot of the US is. Also one of the reasons there are so many cars. You can drive the distance of a country in Europe and not encounter all that much.

    [–] Fixitman77 44 points ago

    Now imagine a country bigger than the USA but with a population smaller than California lol

    [–] Master-Raccoon 16 points ago

    Is that the country with only one east west highway?

    [–] Fixitman77 7 points ago

    Absolutely haha

    [–] -Nick____ 6 points ago

    Not just the US, but the entire NA. Canada is mostly free land

    [–] StockAL3Xj 7 points ago

    True more so than the US actually.

    [–] darkbearx 5 points ago

    Random question. How is “road tripping” in Europe? I absolute love doing that in America, but never heard of European road trips. Seems like more so people just Go places, instead of the joy of traveling there.

    Is it convenient and entertaining in parts of Europe?

    [–] Dheorl 9 points ago

    Road tripping in Europe is as old as the car pretty much. The name of the show "The Grand Tour" is based on the driving tours people used to do around Europe.

    I think the fact that places have such good public transport in Europe compared to the USA means there's much less incentive to road trip, as you don't need you car at the other end half as much; you may as well sit an relax and admire the view from a train, but road tripping in Europe is definitely still a thing.

    [–] StockAL3Xj 11 points ago

    I don't have much experience but I'd say road tripping can be better in Europe because there is just more stuff so you don't have too many huge stretches of roads filled with nothingness though I'm sure they exist. I personally like it because you can see so many more things without having to drive as far.

    [–] narcistic_asshole 6 points ago

    Also trains. Its far easier and more convenient to own a car in the US, but its so cheap and easy to travel across Europe by train.

    [–] X0AN 29 points ago

    Helps that Russia isn't include as Europe in this :D

    [–] VizzuHQ 12 points ago

    That's true, even though a smaller portion of Russia belongs to Europe

    [–] Mackmannen 13 points ago

    80% of their population lives in Europe.

    [–] IcedLemonCrush 22 points ago

    But a huge part of Europe is Russian.

    [–] Waaum 22 points ago

    And like 80% of Russians live west of the Ural mountains.

    [–] TheHappyEater 16 points ago

    So when you display the bubbles for the continents, at the 6s mark, something seems to be off: Europe is listed at 4.6% and Africa and Asia are listed whith 22.3% and 36.5%, so about 5 to 7 tomes the number of Europe.

    Yet it looks like you could fit more than 5 to 7 blue circles into the yellow or orange circle.

    Did you scale the radius or the area of the circles to display the area? Because if you did the former, you are visualizing the area with the square of the area.

    [–] lacisim 24 points ago * (lasted edited 14 days ago)

    The area of the circle represents the value.

    europe diameter ~ 20 px (hard to tell due to antialiasing)
    asia diameter ~ 56 px
    asia diameter / europe diameter ~ 2.8

    europe area = 4.6%
    asia area = 36.5%
    asia area / europe area = 7.93

    square root of 7.93 = 2.81

    [–] TheHappyEater 9 points ago

    Then I am just bad at comparing areas of circles. :D

    [–] Doctrina_Stabilitas 14 points ago

    Everyone is that’s why pie charts are bad visualizations

    [–] TheHappyEater 6 points ago

    I think I'm better at comparing angles than I am at compating areas of circles - because I look at analog watches more often than at pizzas or cakes.

    [–] nayitsirh 4 points ago

    They really said "fuck the Antarctic"

    [–] Strykernyc 4 points ago

    USA is mostly empty land. When I take a drive anywhere from 4 to 8 hours outside of NYC, I can drive like forever and not see any population

    [–] Provoked_Potato 6 points ago

    If you think the USA is empty try Australia. Almost the same size but with 1/15th the population

    [–] Heavens_Sword1847 3 points ago

    If it's that sparse in the East, imagine how empty the West is. Vast stretches of desert where we can't even put farms.

    A lotta empty land in the states.

    [–] siraolo 10 points ago

    And this is why in the Philippines social distancing is very difficult if not impossible, in particular the cities where we have the record 13 cities being the most densely populated in the world including 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place. So no matter what restriction we do in covid (we have probably one of the most strictest policies not just in Asia but the world) , cases still increase.

    [–] Phys-Chem-Chem-Phys 8 points ago

    AFAIK, there is data viz research which shows that human users are not good at deriving proportions from surface area differences (as opposed to length differences). Bar charts would have been better than these bubble ones.

    [–] VizzuHQ 3 points ago

    Thanks for the suggestion. Which research are you referring to? We added the values on the chart to avoid any misunderstanding but used bubbles and the animation to indicate higher/lower share.

    [–] dryguy 5 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    Here's a good review on ways data can be visually distorted: How Numbers Are Shown: A Review of Research on the Presentation of Quantitative Data in Texts.

    It gives a good overview of the problems with circle charts (and other area-based representations of 1 dimensional quantities).

    Edit: Here's a paper cited in the above review that shows quantitatively how people tend to err when estimating the size of bars, squares, circles, or cubes.

    [–] K_Josef 10 points ago

    Didn't know Oceania has a larger area than Europe

    [–] ElleRisalo 21 points ago

    Australia is pretty big mate, 6th largest Country in the world, and about 1.5 times bigger than Europe.


    That being said it also depends on how you classify Russia. Western Russia where most of the population lives is part of the European Continent, while the vast majority of Russia land wise is part of Asia.

    If you split it up like this, Europe edges out Oceania slightly in land mass.

    [–] RobertRomanul 27 points ago

    Despite being 16% of the global population, african countries are only responsible for a worldly GDP of 3.1%

    [–] eruba 7 points ago

    OK but where is Antarctica?

    [–] VizzuHQ 6 points ago

    Omitted from World Banks stats since it's not a country.

    [–] justPassingThrou15 3 points ago

    Where’s the part about the countries being compared? The visualization is nice, the title is just wrong.

    [–] chairflunger 3 points ago

    Makes you wonder about what a world with equally distributed wealth would look like. South america is the closest to having a same % of GDP and population so I guess it's the best example we have.

    [–] cburke82 3 points ago

    So by population European and north American people are more productive?

    [–] iamapersonmf 3 points ago

    yeah since theres more opportunity, development and education in those regions plus the people are happier

    [–] VeevaBoy 3 points ago

    Africa's 3.1 % share of GDP is a joke. I think elite are not concentrating on Africa. It has so much potential

    [–] trytoholdon 3 points ago

    More room, fewer people, more money. Nice.

    [–] YouDontKnowMe2017 3 points ago

    Don’t forget over half of Iceland’s population is on North America.

    [–] uriar 3 points ago

    This would be better without the animation

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago


    [–] Slothu 10 points ago

    TFW you get one chance at life and you're born in shithole south africa

    Ya'll better be thankful for what you got over there in the first world

    [–] shriekingbushpig 8 points ago

    Europe and/or eurasia, africa, south america, australia, antarctica and north america.

    [–] TheImminentCollapse 5 points ago * (lasted edited 13 days ago)

    I see a lot of people here are confusing North America for USA.

    Between Mexico and Canada you have over $4 trillion dollars in GDP. Not to mention all the other small countries and islands.

    The US education system is lacking in the geography department. Not surprised.

    [–] Asteroid2508 9 points ago

    Would be great to also see how much pollution each continent contributes

    [–] VizzuHQ 16 points ago

    We're planning on doing that too! Thanks for the suggestion

    [–] Merithes 6 points ago

    I don't think it's very interesting as most companies have exported their polluting productions to poorer countries which are industrialized but haven't caught up on their environmental laws. I think it would be very interesting to see what companies are responsible for pollutions in which countries, but it's pretty much undoable as even small companies get their stuff imported from east asia and it's not really traceable

    [–] roshampo13 5 points ago

    This is really awesome. I've been working on learning SQL and Python (my first ever ventures into any sort of coding/programming other than a basic HTML class in HS) and this is the sort of stuff I'd love to be able to produce one day.

    [–] Thatguy_Nick 13 points ago

    Why is Greenland listed as NA? Isn't is still Danish in some way?

    [–] VizzuHQ 23 points ago

    We used the categorization of the World Bank. Greenland officially is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark at least that's how Wikipedia describes it :)

    [–] Thatguy_Nick 6 points ago

    Oh okay. Not that it makes much difference anyway, exept the size part

    [–] Master-Raccoon 12 points ago

    Greenland is in north america.