Norway tops iSelect home security index as UK ranks seventh

iSelect has ranked Norway as the most security-conscious country in its latest international home security index. Finland and New Zealand placed second and third in the study of 32 countries.

The comparison service assessed robbery rates, home security-related search activity, household disposable income and internet access, then combined them into a weighted overall score.

Norway recorded the highest total score at 87.39. It had 15 robberies per 100,000 people, 2,236 home security searches per 100,000, a security consciousness score of 85.21 and a smart home security infrastructure score of 90.66.

Finland followed with an overall score of 82.48, supported by 105 robberies per 100,000 people and 2,057 home security searches per 100,000. New Zealand ranked third with 80.08, with 78 robberies per 100,000 people and 1,907 searches per 100,000.

Ireland came fourth with 77.03, while Denmark rounded out the top five with 74.54. The Netherlands, the UK, the US, Chile and Australia completed the top 10.

Among the leaders, Denmark recorded the highest level of home security-related search activity in the sample, with 3,143 searches per 100,000 people. Australia had the highest robbery rate in the top 10 at 578 per 100,000, while the US posted the strongest smart home security infrastructure score at 96.39.

How it was measured

The index used two categories: security consciousness and home security infrastructure. Security consciousness accounted for 60% of the overall score and used robbery rates and home security-related search activity as indicators of risk and public interest.

Home security infrastructure made up the remaining 40% and drew on household disposable income and internet access. These factors were intended to show whether households were in a position to adopt connected security products such as cameras, alarms and monitoring systems.

All data points were normalised before the scores were combined. Countries and US states were analysed separately because of differences in data availability, although the same scoring framework was used for both groups.

Top performers

Norway's first-place finish reflected low robbery rates, strong online interest in home security and high internet access. The study noted that 99% of households in Norway had internet access, which helped lift its infrastructure score.

Finland also performed strongly across all four measures, combining low robbery rates with high search interest. New Zealand's position near the top was driven largely by its relatively low robbery rate, despite having one of the lower household disposable income figures in the top 10.

Ireland ranked fourth with stronger household disposable income than New Zealand, although its household internet access rate was lower. Denmark reached the top five largely because of very high search activity, but a robbery rate of 537 per 100,000 reduced its overall position.

UK and Australia

The UK ranked seventh overall with a total score of 73.08. It recorded 120 robberies per 100,000 people, 974 home security searches per 100,000, a security consciousness score of 63.09 and a smart home security infrastructure score of 88.07.

Australia placed 10th with an overall score of 71.05. It logged 578 robberies per 100,000 people, 1,927 home security searches per 100,000, a security consciousness score of 57.90 and a home security infrastructure score of 90.76.

The figures suggest that strong internet access and household income do not automatically produce a higher ranking if robbery rates are elevated or online interest in home protection is weaker. By contrast, lower robbery rates combined with sustained search activity tended to improve overall standings.

Robbery data came from World Population Review, The Global Economy and Statista, while search activity came from DataForSEO. Household income and internet usage data were sourced from the International Telecommunication Union, Statista, Entrepreneur.com and Wikipedia.

The rankings reflect relative positions within the selected sample rather than a universal measure of household safety, and may not capture every local or real-world nuance.