Digital nomad rankings often prioritise affordability, internet speeds and visa accessibility. However, new research suggests these factors may not reflect whether remote workers can maintain their wellbeing over longer stays abroad.
Why wellbeing matters for digital nomads
Remote work has made it easier than ever for professionals to build careers while travelling internationally. Popular digital nomad rankings typically focus on practical considerations such as internet connectivity, living costs and immigration policies. While these indicators help travellers choose destinations that support remote work, they do not necessarily capture quality of life.
Long-term travel can introduce challenges that are less visible in traditional rankings. Frequent relocation may disrupt routines, make it harder to build social connections and create barriers to maintaining healthy habits. Research from global-eSIM provider Holafly found that 32.2% of frequent and long-stay travellers have experienced burnout linked to their travel lifestyle, while 32.3% have felt isolated from their usual social or emotional support network. Even routine aspects of daily life, such as sleeping well, exercising regularly and maintaining a healthy diet, can become more difficult when home is constantly changing.
Digital nomads are also clear about the obstacles they face. More than a third (33.7%) identified unpredictable schedules or changing time zones as their biggest challenge, while 20.7% said they struggled because they were unfamiliar with the wellbeing resources available in a new destination. A further 18.8% pointed to the cost of gyms, exercise classes and healthy food as a barrier to maintaining healthy routines while travelling.
These findings raise an important question: are the world’s most popular remote-working destinations also the places where people are most likely to thrive?
What the research found
To explore this issue, researchers analysed 25 established digital nomad destinations using a wellbeing-focused framework. Rather than concentrating on traditional measures such as internet speed or visa availability, the study examined eight factors linked to everyday quality of life:
- Community and social connections
- Green space access
- Exercise opportunities
- Healthy food availability
- Healthcare provision
- Noise levels
- Daylight exposure
- Cost of living
Using publicly available data from sources including the World Health Organization, Mercer and Google Maps, each city received a wellbeing deficit score. Higher scores indicated greater barriers to maintaining healthy routines and overall wellbeing while living abroad.
The results suggest that some destinations commonly praised for their affordability and popularity among remote workers perform much less favourably when quality-of-life factors are taken into account.
The 10 lowest-ranked cities
According to the analysis, the following destinations recorded the highest wellbeing deficit scores:
- Lima, Peru
- Hanoi, Vietnam
- Cusco, Peru
- Bogotá, Colombia
- Da Nang, Vietnam
- Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
- Cancún, Mexico
- Medellín, Colombia
- Tbilisi, Georgia
- Buenos Aires, Argentina
The findings may come as a surprise given the popularity of many of these locations within digital nomad communities. Several regularly feature in rankings that prioritise affordability, culture and lifestyle appeal.
Lima ranked as the most challenging destination for digital nomad wellbeing, recording a deficit score of 85.3 out of 100. The Peruvian capital scored poorly for daylight exposure, green space and noise levels. Hanoi placed second with a score of 82.7, performing particularly poorly in measures related to noise, exercise access and green space. Cusco ranked third, largely due to having the weakest social and community network in the study.
Other cities in the ranking faced a range of challenges, from environmental factors and limited recreational opportunities to weaker community connections. While these destinations continue to attract remote workers, the findings suggest maintaining healthy habits may require more effort compared with other nomad hubs.
The affordability trade-off
One of the most striking patterns in the results is the number of budget-friendly destinations appearing near the bottom of the wellbeing ranking.
Six of the ten lowest-ranked cities are well-established choices for cost-conscious digital nomads. This suggests that lower living costs do not always translate into a better quality of life, particularly for people planning extended stays abroad.
A destination may offer cheap accommodation, inexpensive food and strong remote-working infrastructure while still presenting challenges related to healthcare, environmental quality or social connection. These factors are often overlooked during the planning stage but can become increasingly important over time.
For remote workers, the findings highlight the importance of looking beyond headline costs when choosing a destination. Affordability may make a city attractive initially, but access to wellbeing-supporting resources can play a significant role in determining whether a stay remains enjoyable and sustainable.
Looking beyond traditional rankings
As digital nomadism becomes a longer-term lifestyle for more professionals, wellbeing is likely to become a more important factor in how destinations are assessed.
Traditional rankings remain useful for evaluating practical considerations such as connectivity and cost. However, measures of community, healthcare access, green space and lifestyle quality provide a different perspective on what it is actually like to live and work in a destination.
The research suggests that the best place to work remotely is not always the best place to live well. For digital nomads planning their next move, considering wellbeing alongside affordability may provide a more complete picture of which destinations are best suited to long-term success and quality of life.
