EEA Countries Ranked by Preply’s English-Learning Index
Education and Training
Which European countries appear to offer the strongest environment for learning and using English? A historical study published by the language-learning company Preply attempted to answer that question by combining education, proficiency, search and employment indicators.
The result should not be described as a league table of countries investing the most money in English education. It is a commercial composite index covering 29 countries in the European Economic Area (EEA). It does not report comparable national budgets for English-language teaching.
This guide explains what the ranking measured, presents its reported top 10 and identifies the limitations readers should consider. Because several inputs were snapshots that can change quickly, the results are best treated as a historical indication rather than a current global ranking.
What did Preply’s English-learning index measure?
Preply’s analysis combined indicators including whether English was compulsory or elective in schools, counts of English-language and international schools, Google search volumes, English-related job advertisements, English proficiency and public expenditure on education. Preply says it used these variables to create a weighted overall index.
However, the visible study page does not disclose the weight assigned to each factor or the complete calculation used to produce the scores. That means an independent researcher cannot reproduce the ranking from the published information, test how sensitive it is to different weights or establish how much each variable affected a country’s position.
The underlying measures also do not all represent the same concept. General education expenditure, for example, is not expenditure specifically allocated to English teaching. A school count records institutions rather than their capacity, quality, fees or number of learners. Likewise, a vacancy containing an English requirement reflects a moment in the labour market, not the success of a country’s language policy.
Readers can examine the publisher’s ranking and methodology in the original Preply study. Its figures relate to the source editions and collection periods used when the study was assembled; they should not be treated as live values.
Why does the study include 29 EEA countries?
The European Economic Area comprises the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, making 30 countries in total. Preply’s comparison includes 29 and omits Ireland.
English and Irish are Ireland’s official languages under Article 8 of the Constitution of Ireland, so excluding Ireland may avoid comparing a country in which English is an official and widely used language with countries principally learning it as an additional language. However, Preply’s visible study page does not explain the omission. It should therefore not be presented as a documented selection rule.
Reported top 10 in the historical index
The table reproduces the overall order reported by Preply. “Combined position” refers to the publisher’s composite index, not direct national investment, teaching quality or a population-wide proficiency test.
| Rank | Country | What the position means |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Germany | Highest combined position across Preply’s proxy indicators |
| 2 | Spain | Second-highest combined position |
| 3 | Netherlands | Third-highest combined position |
| 4 | Italy | Fourth-highest combined position |
| 5 | Denmark | Fifth-highest combined position |
| 6 | Sweden | Sixth-highest combined position |
| 7 | Poland | Seventh-highest combined position |
| 8 | Norway | Eighth-highest combined position |
| 9 | France | Ninth-highest combined position |
| 10 | Iceland | Tenth-highest combined position |
This is an EEA-only comparison, with Ireland omitted, rather than a worldwide table. It cannot support conclusions about countries outside the study, including major English-learning markets in Asia, Africa or the Americas.
How should the leading countries be interpreted?
Germany
Germany placed first after the study combined its policy, institution, search, employment, proficiency and general education-spending inputs. The source reported numerous language schools and English-related vacancies, but raw totals are influenced by Germany’s large population and economy. They do not show how many learners attended a school, how much was spent per learner or whether studying English caused a particular employment outcome.
Education policy in Germany is primarily the responsibility of its Länder, so one national description can conceal regional differences. The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs provides official context on the German school system.
Spain
Spain ranked second in Preply’s composite. Counts of language schools and international schools helped shape that result, alongside the other variables. These figures indicate the presence of institutions, not their quality, capacity or accessibility. Raw searches also cannot establish that people in one country are more enthusiastic than those elsewhere unless population, internet usage, language and search-market differences are addressed.
For current information about language learning within Spain’s education system, consult the Spanish Ministry of Education, Vocational Training and Sports.
The Netherlands
The Netherlands ranked third and also performs strongly in EF’s separate English Proficiency Index. EF’s 2025 edition reports a score of 624 for the Netherlands; its 2024 score was 636. The dated results and reports are available through EF’s English Proficiency Index downloads page.
EF’s index and Preply’s ranking are different products and should not be treated as interchangeable. EF bases its index on results from adults who took its English tests, rather than a census or representative test of every resident. EF explains the dataset and its limitations in the methodology accompanying each annual report. The year-changing EF profile for the Netherlands can provide the latest country result, but a dated report is preferable when citing a particular year.
Why this is not a direct measure of investment
“Investment” normally suggests money or resources committed for a defined purpose. To compare direct public investment in English teaching properly, researchers would need consistently defined expenditure data—for example, annual government spending on English tuition per pupil, stated on the same price basis and adjusted for purchasing power. The Preply index does not provide that measure.
Its public-education expenditure variable covers much more than English. Compulsory teaching is a policy choice, not a spending amount. Commercial school counts may reflect market size, while proficiency is an outcome influenced by education, media exposure, migration, tourism and workplace use.
For internationally comparable education-finance data, readers can consult Eurostat’s educational expenditure statistics. Even these official statistics generally describe expenditure by education level, provider or transaction rather than isolating spending on English as a subject.
Worked example: how population size can reverse a comparison
Consider two hypothetical countries. Country A has 1,000 English schools and 80 million residents. Country B has 300 schools and 10 million residents. A raw count puts Country A first, but a rate calculation produces a different result:
- Country A: 1,000 ÷ 80,000,000 × 1,000,000 = 12.5 schools per million residents.
- Country B: 300 ÷ 10,000,000 × 1,000,000 = 30 schools per million residents.
The apparent leader reverses after a basic population adjustment. This does not prove that Country B has better schools; it simply shows that totals and per-person rates answer different questions.
The same problem affects search totals and job advertisements. A more robust comparison would calculate searches and vacancies per 100,000 working-age residents, use the same collection period and platform, remove duplicate vacancies, and document the exact terms, languages and geographic filters. Even then, these would remain indicators of online activity or labour demand—not proof of educational spending, teaching quality or public enthusiasm.
What about the lower-ranked countries?
Preply’s bottom 10, from the lowest position upwards as originally presented, comprised Slovenia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Romania and Liechtenstein.
That order does not demonstrate that these countries neglect English. Small populations can produce fewer schools, searches and vacancies in absolute terms. National curricula may also be represented poorly when complex subject requirements are reduced to a compulsory-or-elective flag. Current policy should therefore be checked with the relevant national education ministry or the European Commission’s Eurydice network, which publishes descriptions of European education systems.
Can job adverts reveal the value of English?
Vacancy data can show that some employers mention English at a particular time, but counts fluctuate with the platform, wording, location filters, duplicate listings and wider hiring conditions. A snapshot for Berlin or Warsaw cannot prove that English education created those jobs or that every vacancy requires the same proficiency level.
For an individual jobseeker, current adverts in their occupation and region are more useful than an old capital-city total. Check whether employers request conversational communication, technical writing, sector-specific vocabulary or a recognised qualification, then plan learning around that evidence.
How to improve your English skills
- Set a defined goal: choose a practical outcome, such as handling a five-minute conversation or writing a clear workplace email.
- Use active practice: speaking, writing and recalling vocabulary require more effort than passively watching content.
- Seek specific feedback: ask a qualified teacher or competent speaker to identify recurring errors rather than correcting everything at once.
- Study little and often: schedule manageable sessions and revisit material over time.
- Match practice to context: learners preparing for work, travel, university or an examination need different vocabulary and tasks.
- Track progress consistently: save short recordings or writing samples and compare them periodically using the same criteria.
Frequently asked questions
Which country invests the most in English education?
This Preply study cannot answer that question in monetary terms. Germany ranked first in its historical composite index, but the index combines proxies rather than comparable spending specifically on English education.
Why is Ireland missing?
Ireland is the only EEA country absent from the 29-country comparison. English is an official language there, which may explain its exclusion, but Preply’s visible study page does not state the reason.
Can the ranking be independently reproduced?
Not from the visible methodology alone. Preply describes a weighted index but does not publish the factor weights or full calculation needed to reproduce the scores and test alternative assumptions.
Is this a global ranking?
No. It covers 29 of the 30 EEA countries. Countries outside that geographic scope were not assessed.
Does a high proficiency score prove that a policy works?
No. A score describes performance in a particular dataset but does not identify its cause. Sampling, education, age, media exposure, migration and economic conditions may all matter.
Are search volumes a reliable measure of interest?
Only as a limited and clearly documented proxy. Raw totals should not be compared without accounting for population, internet use, search-engine coverage, language, keywords and collection date.
What sources are best for current country information?
Use the relevant education ministry for curriculum policy, Eurostat for comparable European statistics and a dated EF report for historical EF proficiency results. Always check the year, definition, sample and methodology before comparing figures.
Conclusion
Preply’s index offers one way to combine indicators related to English learning and use across 29 EEA countries. It placed Germany, Spain and the Netherlands in the first three positions. However, it does not establish which government spends the most on English education, and it should not be used to label lower-ranked populations as less motivated.
The most responsible interpretation is to treat the table as a historical commercial composite shaped by selected variables, undisclosed weights and some unadjusted totals. For policy or business decisions, consult current official spending, curriculum and labour-market datasets and compare like-for-like measures on a per-person basis.
About this article: Lead Academy’s editorial team produces educational explainers by comparing the original publisher’s claims with relevant official and primary sources. This article does not constitute a formal assessment of any country’s education system, teaching quality or public expenditure.