%20Scorecard%20Rank%20by%20Country.jpg "The Oxford Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI): Scorecard Rank by Country")
The Intersection of Global Cybersecurity Benchmarks: ITU’s GCI and Oxford’s CMM
It is important to clarify a common point of confusion: while the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) and the Oxford Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model (CMM) are both leading benchmarks in the field, they are distinct initiatives managed by different organizations. The GCI is an initiative of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), whereas the CMM was developed by the University of Oxford's Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC).
What is Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI)?
The Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) and the Oxford Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model (CMM) are the two most influential frameworks for measuring national cybersecurity. While the ITU’s GCI ranks 193 countries based on their level of commitment across five pillars, the Oxford CMM provides a qualitative assessment of a nation's maturity across five dimensions. Together, they allow governments to identify security gaps, benchmark progress against peers, and develop roadmap strategies for digital resilience.
1. The GCI (ITU)
The Global Cybersecurity Index is a trusted reference that measures the commitment of 193 countries to cybersecurity. It focuses on raising awareness and measuring national progress across five "pillars."
Legal Measures: Existence of cybercrime legislation and cybersecurity regulations.
Technical Measures: Presence of National Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) and sector-specific agencies.
Organizational Measures: National cybersecurity strategies and development of responsible agencies.
Capacity Development: Awareness campaigns, professional training, and educational programs.
Cooperation: Participation in international forums and public-private partnerships.
2. The Oxford CMM (University of Oxford)
Developed at the Oxford Martin School, the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model for Nations (CMM) is a framework designed to help countries self-assess and understand the "maturity" of their cybersecurity.
The Five Dimensions of Maturity
Unlike the GCI’s focus on "commitment," the CMM focuses on Maturity Levels (from "Start-up" to "Dynamic") across five dimensions:
Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy: Strategy development and incident response.
Cyber Culture and Society: Public trust, user awareness, and privacy.
Knowledge and Capabilities: Education, professional training, and research.
Legal and Regulatory Frameworks: Legislative quality and enforcement.
Standards and Technologies: Adherence to international standards and infrastructure protection.
3. Key Differences at a Glance
| Feature | Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) | Oxford CMM |
| Lead Organization | International Telecommunication Union (ITU) | University of Oxford (GCSCC) |
| Primary Goal | Ranking/Benchmarking global commitment. | Assessing & improving national maturity. |
| Output | A global ranking/scorecard. | A detailed, qualitative gap-analysis report. |
| Methodology | Online surveys and multi-stakeholder data. | In-country consultations and expert interviews. |
4. Why They Are Often Linked
Oxford’s research and the CMM framework are frequently cited in the GCI's methodology. The ITU often uses the CMM as a tool for "Capacity Building" (the fourth pillar of the GCI). Essentially, while the GCI tells a country where they stand in a global ranking, the Oxford CMM tells them how to grow to the next level of security.
Note: As of 2026, both frameworks have heavily integrated AI Governance and Quantum-Resistant Cryptography into their assessment criteria to keep pace with emerging technological threats.
Leading Nations On The GCI 2024–2025 - Scorecard Rank
In the latest Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI), the ITU transitioned from a simple numerical ranking to a Tier-based system. This shift acknowledges that cybersecurity is an ongoing journey rather than a finite race.
Tier 1 status is reserved for "Role-Modelling" countries—the global elite that scored between 95 and 100 points. These nations demonstrate a world-class commitment across all five pillars: Legal, Technical, Organizational, Capacity Development, and Cooperation.
Global Leaders (Tier 1 Scorecard)
Below are the top performers that have set the global standard for cyber resilience in 2024 and 2026.
| Flag | Country | GCI Score | Tier Classification |
| 🇰🇷 | South Korea | 100.00 | Tier 1 (Role-Modelling) |
| 🇬🇧 | United Kingdom | 100.00 | Tier 1 (Role-Modelling) |
| 🇸🇦 | Saudi Arabia | 100.00 | Tier 1 (Role-Modelling) |
| 🇲🇺 | Mauritius | 100.00 | Tier 1 (Role-Modelling) |
| 🇮🇩 | Indonesia | 100.00 | Tier 1 (Role-Modelling) |
| 🇸🇬 | Singapore | 99.00+ | Tier 1 (Role-Modelling) |
| 🇮🇳 | India | 98.49 | Tier 1 (Role-Modelling) |
| 🇧🇷 | Brazil | 96.50 | Tier 1 (Role-Modelling) |
Key Trends Among Top-Scoring Nations
The data from the latest scorecard reveals common traits among these leaders:
Holistic Legislation: Tier 1 countries don't just have cybercrime laws; they have specific regulations for Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) and mandatory breach notifications.
Operational CIRTs: Leading nations have fully functional National Computer Incident Response Teams (CIRTs) that engage in international "cyber drills."
Active Cooperation: 92% of top-tier countries participate in international treaties, proving that isolation is not a viable defense strategy.
Human-Centric Development: These nations have integrated cybersecurity into national school curricula and offer specialized training for the workforce.
From Commitment to Maturity
While the GCI scorecard above shows a country's commitment (the systems they have built), it is often paired with the Oxford CMM to measure maturity (how effective those systems are in day-to-day operations). A "100" on the GCI means the tools are present; the CMM tells you if the workmen know how to use them skillfully.
Scoring the Scorecard: KPIs and Metrics
To understand how a country earns its rank, we must look at the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that fuel the GCI and CMM. While the GCI measures presence (Do you have it?), the CMM measures depth (How well does it work?).
GCI Performance Metrics (The "What")
The ITU uses a rigorous set of 83 questions across 20 indicators to calculate a final score out of 100. Each of the five pillars is weighted equally (20 points each).
| Pillar | Core KPIs (Metrics) |
| Legal | Cybercrime legislation, data protection laws, and breach notification requirements. |
| Technical | National/Sectoral CERTs, framework for critical infrastructure, and technical standards adoption. |
| Organizational | National Cybersecurity Strategy (NCS) presence, lead agency funding, and metrics/audits. |
| Capacity Dev. | Cybersecurity in school curricula, R&D programs, and public awareness campaigns. |
| Cooperation | Bilateral/Multilateral agreements, international treaty participation, and private sector partnerships. |
Oxford CMM Maturity Indicators (The "How")
The Oxford model doesn't just check a box; it assigns a Maturity Stage to each KPI. This is the "Pulse" of a nation's cyber-readiness.
Stage 1 (Start-up): Ad-hoc or no formal processes.
Stage 2 (Formative): Early stages of discussion or draft policies.
Stage 3 (Established): Functioning processes with dedicated resources.
Stage 4 (Strategic): Policies are prioritized and integrated into national planning.
Stage 5 (Dynamic): Rapidly adapting to new threats like AI and Quantum risks.
7. Global Leaderboard: 2024–2026 Tier 1 Countries
The 2024–2025 GCI report shows a massive surge in "Role-Modelling" countries. These nations are at the frontier, having achieved near-perfect scores across all KPIs.
| Flag | Country | GCI KPI Score | Notable Strength |
| 🇰🇷 | South Korea | 100.00 | Technical (5G & IoT security) |
| 🇬🇧 | United Kingdom | 100.00 | Organizational (Lead Agency - NCSC) |
| 🇸🇦 | Saudi Arabia | 100.00 | Legal (Advanced Data Privacy Laws) |
| 🇲🇺 | Mauritius | 100.00 | Cooperation (Regional Cyber Hub) |
| 🇸🇬 | Singapore | 100.00 | Capacity Development (Workforce training) |
| 🇮🇳 | India | 98.49 | Legal & Technical (Rapid Scalability) |
| 🇧🇷 | Brazil | 96.50 | Organizational (Gov. Cloud Strategy) |
Regional Powerhouses
Africa: Mauritius and Ghana lead the way, proving that economic size doesn't limit cybersecurity commitment.
Asia: Indonesia and Thailand have jumped into Tier 1, showing the fastest growth in "Organizational" and "Technical" KPIs since 2021.
Europe: Denmark and The Netherlands remain consistent leaders in "Critical Infrastructure" protection.
8. Why Scorecards Matter for the Future
In 2026, these scorecards are no longer just for bragging rights. They are used by:
Foreign Investors: Higher GCI/CMM scores correlate with lower digital risk, attracting tech investment.
Insurance Companies: National maturity levels help insurers price cyber-risk premiums for local businesses.
Diplomacy: High-ranking countries now use their "Tier 1" status as leverage in international digital trade negotiations.
Global Architects: Organizations Driving the GCI and CMM
The success of these cybersecurity benchmarks is not the work of a single entity. It is a massive, multi-stakeholder ecosystem involving United Nations agencies, prestigious academic institutions, and international financial bodies.
The Lead Facilitators
International Telecommunication Union (ITU): As the UN specialized agency for ICTs, the ITU is the primary owner and manager of the Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI). It coordinates with 193 Member States to collect data and publish the tier-based rankings.
University of Oxford (GCSCC): The Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre at the Oxford Martin School is the birthplace of the CMM. They provide the academic rigor and the qualitative framework used to measure maturity.
Implementation & Funding Partners
The "Heavy Lifters" who fund and conduct in-country assessments (especially for the CMM) include:
The World Bank: A critical partner that integrates CMM assessments into its "Global Cybersecurity Capacity Program." They often fund reviews in developing nations to ensure digital investments are secure.
Korea Internet & Security Agency (KISA): A major technical and financial contributor, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, sharing South Korea's "Role-Modelling" expertise.
Organization of American States (OAS): The primary driver for CMM deployments in Latin America and the Caribbean, helping regional members align with global standards.
Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE): Acting as a "clearing house," the GFCE connects countries in need of capacity building with the organizations (like Oxford or the ITU) that can provide it.
Regional Anchors
To ensure the benchmarks are culturally and economically relevant, regional organizations act as intermediaries:
| Region | Key Organization Involved | Role |
| Africa | African Union (AU) & Smart Africa | Driving the "African Cyber Capacity Building Framework" alongside CMM reviews. |
| Europe | ENISA (EU Agency for Cybersecurity) | Harmonizing GCI metrics with strict EU-wide regulations like NIS2. |
| Southeast Asia | ASEAN (via ASCCE) | The Singapore-based "Cybersecurity Centre of Excellence" facilitates regional GCI data collection. |
| Commonwealth | Commonwealth Secretariat | Partnering with Oxford to assess maturity across its 56 member states. |
10. The Collaborative Workflow
In a typical national assessment, these organizations work in a "Hand-off" fashion:
Benchmarking (ITU/GCI): The country identifies its global standing via the GCI scorecard.
Deep-Dive (Oxford/World Bank): Experts visit the country to conduct a CMM review, interviewing everyone from ministers to ISPs.
Investment (World Bank/GFCE): Based on the gaps found, the World Bank or other donors provide the funding needed to build the CERTs or laws required to move to the next GCI Tier.
Note: As of 2026, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has also become a primary partner for the "Legal Pillar," assisting countries in drafting legislation that specifically matches the criteria of both the GCI and the CMM.
Digging into the Data: How Scores Are Built
To ensure the GCI and CMM are more than just "self-reported" numbers, both frameworks use a rigorous, multi-layered data collection process. The data is sourced from a blend of government focal points, on-the-ground experts, and extensive secondary research.
GCI Data Collection (Quantitative Evidence)
The ITU follows a structured, evidence-based process to verify the claims made by member states. This prevents "aspirational" reporting where a country might claim to have a law that isn't actually in force.
Primary Source: A comprehensive questionnaire sent to officially nominated national focal points (usually the Ministry of ICT or a National Cyber Agency).
The Binary Rule: Most GCI questions are binary (Yes/No). For a "Yes" to be accepted, the country must provide verifiable evidence (links to legislation, copies of strategy documents, or official government gazettes).
Multi-Stakeholder Verification: The ITU team cross-checks submissions with partners like FIRST (for technical CERT data) and the UNODC (for legal compliance).
Independent Audit: The final scores are often audited by external groups, such as the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), to ensure statistical robustness.
Oxford CMM Data Sourcing (Qualitative Depth)
The CMM uses a much more "hands-on" methodology. Instead of just reviewing documents, it uses Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) to uncover the reality behind the reports.
Stakeholder Clusters: During a 3-to-5 day in-country review, researchers interview representatives from:
Public Sector: National security, law enforcement, and education ministries.
Private Sector: ISPs, banks, and critical infrastructure operators.
Academia & Civil Society: Universities and human rights organizations.
The Consensus Method: Unlike a survey, the CMM requires stakeholders to reach a consensus on their nation's maturity. If the government says their strategy is "Strategic" but the private sector says they’ve never seen it, the maturity score is adjusted downward.
Desk Research: Extensive pre-visit and post-visit research is conducted to validate the "Indicators" of maturity.
Comparison of Data Sources
| Feature | GCI Data Sourcing | Oxford CMM Data Sourcing |
| Primary Method | Online survey with document uploads. | In-country focus groups & interviews. |
| Verification | External audit of provided URLs/PDFs. | Cross-stakeholder consensus. |
| Focus | Existence (Is the law written?). | Effectiveness (Is the law enforced?). |
| Transparency | Public scorecard and regional reports. | Private evidence-based report (Gov't choice to publish). |
12. The "Sunburst" Data Visualization
One unique data output of the Oxford CMM is the Sunburst Diagram. While the GCI provides a single score or "Tier," the CMM produces a multi-layered chart showing maturity across every individual "Aspect" of cybersecurity. This allows policymakers to see at a glance if their country is strong in "Legal" but critically weak in "Cyber Culture."
2026 Update: Both the ITU and Oxford now leverage AI-driven data scrapers to monitor national legislative changes in real-time, allowing for more frequent updates to the GCI Tiers between major reporting cycles.
