Manytoolz 2026 Global Penis Size Report: 67,130 Subjects Across 160 Countries

## Abstract **Background:** Despite significant public interest, population-level data on penile dimensions remains limited, with existing studies often constrained by small sample sizes or regional focus. **Objective:** This report presents a large-scale analysis of self-reported penile measurements from 67,130 validated submissions across 160 countries. **Methods:** Data was collected via an anonymous online calculator tool between July 2025 and January 2026. Geographic data obtained via ip-api.com batch geolocation service. Rigorous validation excluded 16,874 records (20.1%) based on physiologically implausible values, missing data, and suspicious submission patterns. **Results:** Mean erect length was **16.62 cm (6.54 in)** (95% CI: 16.60–16.64). Mean girth was **13.22 cm (5.20 in)**. Length and girth showed a strong positive correlation (Pearson r = 0.61, p < 0.001). Significant geographic variation was observed across 160 countries. **Conclusions:** This dataset represents one of the largest collections of penile measurement data to date, providing valuable reference percentiles for clinical and research applications. --- ## Key Findings at a Glance | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | **Total Validated Submissions** | 67,130 | | **Countries Represented** | 160 | | **Average Length** | 16.62 cm (6.54 in) | | **Average Girth** | 13.22 cm (5.20 in) | | **Median Length** | 16.8 cm (6.61 in) | | **Median Girth** | 13.3 cm (5.24 in) | --- ## 1. Introduction Penile size is a topic of considerable interest in both clinical medicine and public discourse. Accurate normative data is essential for urological practice, particularly in the assessment of micropenis, reconstructive surgery planning, and addressing patient concerns about size perception. However, existing studies have notable limitations. The recent meta-analysis by **Habous et al. (2025)**, which aggregated data from 75,821 men across multiple studies, reported a pooled mean erect length of 13.58 cm. While groundbreaking, this meta-analysis relied on heterogeneous measurement protocols and geographically limited samples. The present study addresses these gaps by analyzing **67,130 self-reported measurements** from users of an anonymous online calculator tool. While self-reported data carries inherent limitations (discussed in the Limitations section), the large sample size and global reach (160 countries) provide unique insights into population-level patterns. ### Research Questions - What are the mean, median, and percentile distributions for length and girth? - What is the correlation between length and girth measurements? - Are there significant geographic variations in reported sizes? - What demographic factors are associated with calculator usage? --- ## 2. Methods ### 2.1 Data Collection Data was collected from an anonymous online "Penis Size Calculator" tool between **July 2025 and January 2026**. Users voluntarily submitted their measurements in either metric (mm) or imperial units, which were standardized to centimeters for analysis. IP addresses were collected solely for geographic enrichment and duplicate detection; no personally identifiable information was stored. ### 2.2 Data Preprocessing From an initial pool of **84,004 submissions**, we applied the following exclusion criteria: | Exclusion Criterion | n Excluded | Rationale | |---------------------|------------|-----------| | Missing values | 8,386 | Incomplete submissions | | Length < 5 cm or > 25 cm | 1,093 | Outside physiological plausibility | | Girth < 5 cm or > 20 cm | 1,052 | Outside physiological plausibility | | Girth > 150% of length | 75 | Anatomically impossible ratio | | Suspicious IP patterns | 418 IPs | >20 submissions or identical repeated values | | **Total excluded** | **16,874 (20.1%)** | | The final validated dataset comprised **67,130 records (79.9%)** of the original submissions. ### 2.3 Statistical Analysis All analyses were performed using Python 3.11 with SciPy 1.11 and NumPy 1.24. Statistical methods included: - **Descriptive statistics:** Mean, median, SD, and full percentile breakdown (1st–99th) - **Confidence intervals:** 95% CIs calculated via t-distribution - **Normality testing:** Shapiro-Wilk test on n=5,000 random sample - **Correlation:** Pearson and Spearman coefficients with p-values - **Geographic comparison:** One-way ANOVA for countries with n ≥ 50 ### 2.4 Supplementary Questionnaire An **optional questionnaire** was offered after measurement submission. Only **4,674 users (7.0%)** completed it. This data provides demographic context (reason for interest, health indicators, employment status) but should be interpreted as a convenience sample of engaged users. --- ## 3. Results ### 3.1 Length Distribution | Statistic | Value | |-----------|-------| | **Mean** | 16.62 cm (6.54 in) | | **Median** | 16.80 cm (6.61 in) | | **Standard Deviation** | 2.66 cm (1.05 in) | | **Minimum** | 5.00 cm (1.97 in) | | **Maximum** | 25.00 cm (9.84 in) | | **95% CI** | 16.60 – 16.64 cm | #### Length Percentile Reference Table | Percentile | Length (cm) | Length (in) | |------------|-------------|-------------| | 1st | 10.4 | 4.09 | | 5th | 12.2 | 4.80 | | 10th | 13.1 | 5.16 | | 25th | 15.2 | 5.98 | | **50th (Median)** | **16.8** | **6.61** | | 75th | 18.0 | 7.09 | | 90th | 19.8 | 7.80 | | 95th | 21.0 | 8.27 | | 99th | 23.5 | 9.25 | ### 3.2 Girth Distribution | Statistic | Value | |-----------|-------| | **Mean** | 13.22 cm (5.20 in) | | **Median** | 13.30 cm (5.24 in) | | **Standard Deviation** | 1.89 cm (0.74 in) | | **Minimum** | 5.00 cm (1.97 in) | | **Maximum** | 20.00 cm (7.87 in) | | **95% CI** | 13.20 – 13.24 cm | #### Girth Percentile Reference Table | Percentile | Girth (cm) | Girth (in) | |------------|------------|------------| | 1st | 8.8 | 3.46 | | 5th | 10.2 | 4.02 | | 10th | 11.0 | 4.33 | | 25th | 12.4 | 4.88 | | **50th (Median)** | **13.3** | **5.24** | | 75th | 14.4 | 5.67 | | 90th | 15.2 | 5.98 | | 95th | 15.8 | 6.22 | | 99th | 17.2 | 6.77 | ### 3.3 Geographic Distribution Submissions were received from **160 countries**. The top 20 countries by submission volume: | Country | Submissions | |---------|-------------| | 🇺🇸 United States | 13,854 | | 🇬🇧 United Kingdom | 1,749 | | 🇨🇦 Canada | 1,631 | | 🇩🇪 Germany | 1,417 | | 🇦🇺 Australia | 1,001 | | 🇧🇷 Brazil | 921 | | 🇳🇱 The Netherlands | 777 | | 🇮🇳 India | 769 | | 🇫🇷 France | 741 | | 🇮🇹 Italy | 613 | | 🇵🇱 Poland | 521 | | 🇸🇪 Sweden | 467 | | 🇪🇸 Spain | 455 | | 🇫🇮 Finland | 308 | | 🇳🇴 Norway | 260 | | 🇲🇽 Mexico | 256 | | 🇧🇪 Belgium | 252 | | 🇹🇷 Türkiye | 249 | | 🇨🇭 Switzerland | 240 | | 🇦🇹 Austria | 234 | ### 3.4 Top 10 Countries by Mean Length | Country | n | Mean (cm) | 95% CI | |---------|---|-----------|--------| | 🇭🇺 Hungary | 255 | 18.01 | 17.71 – 18.30 | | 🇸🇰 Slovakia | 132 | 17.73 | 17.29 – 18.17 | | 🇲🇦 Morocco | 123 | 17.48 | 17.10 – 17.85 | | 🇦🇹 Austria | 443 | 17.37 | 17.13 – 17.61 | | 🇮🇸 Iceland | 47 | 17.30 | 16.74 – 17.85 | | 🇧🇬 Bulgaria | 203 | 17.20 | 16.85 – 17.54 | | 🇬🇪 Georgia | 49 | 17.14 | 16.37 – 17.90 | | 🇸🇪 Sweden | 914 | 17.13 | 16.96 – 17.29 | | 🇷🇸 Serbia | 244 | 17.07 | 16.69 – 17.45 | | 🇬🇷 Greece | 307 | 17.05 | 16.78 – 17.33 | ### 3.5 Bottom 10 Countries by Mean Length | Country | n | Mean (cm) | 95% CI | |---------|---|-----------|--------| | 🇨🇳 China | 39 | 15.09 | 14.45 – 15.74 | | 🇰🇪 Kenya | 32 | 15.06 | 14.33 – 15.78 | | 🇱🇧 Lebanon | 42 | 15.29 | 14.54 – 16.04 | | 🇸🇬 Singapore | 342 | 15.30 | 15.02 – 15.59 | | 🇹🇼 Taiwan | 159 | 15.41 | 14.93 – 15.88 | | 🇭🇰 Hong Kong | 159 | 15.53 | 15.10 – 15.95 | | 🇹🇭 Thailand | 239 | 15.54 | 15.16 – 15.91 | | 🇱🇹 Lithuania | 117 | 15.70 | 15.06 – 16.34 | | 🇲🇾 Malaysia | 197 | 15.78 | 15.29 – 16.27 | | 🇷🇺 Russia | 663 | 15.79 | 15.60 – 15.98 | --- ## 3.6 Correlation Analysis ### Primary Correlation | Relationship | r | p-value | Effect | |--------------|---|---------|--------| | Length × Girth | **0.61** | < 0.001 | Large | Strong positive correlation indicates that longer measurements tend to have greater girth. This is consistent with anatomical expectations. ### Erect vs Flaccid Measurements | State | n | Mean Length | |-------|---|-------------| | Erect | 64,851 | 16.74 cm | | Flaccid | 2,279 | 13.07 cm | **Difference:** 3.68 cm (t = 65.8, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.40 large effect) --- ## 3.7 Health & Behavioral Correlations Analysis of questionnaire responses (n = 4,095 matched pairs) reveals interesting behavioral patterns. ### Significant Findings | Variable | Group | n | Mean Length | p-value | Interpretation | |----------|-------|---|-------------|---------|----------------| | Urination Issues | With issues | 208 | 16.39 cm | **0.013** | Significant association | | Urination Issues | Without issues | 3,887 | 16.89 cm | | | | Smoking Status | Smokers | 570 | 16.66 cm | 0.060 | Borderline (not significant) | | Smoking Status | Non-smokers | 3,525 | 16.90 cm | | | | Usage Frequency | Rarely check | 1,515 | 17.23 cm | **Observed** | Frequent users report smaller | | Usage Frequency | Weekly check | 291 | 16.43 cm | | | | Income Level | High income | 178 | 17.43 cm | Observed | Higher income = larger reported | | Income Level | Low income | 299 | 16.81 cm | | | **Key Insight:** Users who check their size "weekly" report smaller measurements (16.43 cm) compared to those who "rarely" check (17.23 cm). This may reflect size-related anxiety driving more frequent calculator use, rather than a causal relationship. --- ## User Demographics Based on **4,674** optional questionnaire responses. ### Reason for Interest - **Curiosity:** 75.7% (3,540 users) - **Other:** 11.3% (527 users) - **Partner Comparison:** 4.3% (202 users) - **Health Concern:** 3.6% (168 users) ### Usage Frequency - **Rarely:** 35.4% (1,654 users) - **Never:** 33.8% (1,579 users) - **Monthly:** 9.7% (454 users) - **Weekly:** 9.8% (460 users) ### Employment Status - **Employed:** 51.3% (683 users) - **Student:** 43.1% (574 users) - **Unemployed:** 4.4% (59 users) - **Retired:** 1.2% (16 users) ### Health Indicators - **Smokers:** 422 users - **Urination Issues:** 187 users - **Consulted Urologist:** 330 users --- ## 4. Discussion ### 4.1 Comparison with Clinical Studies Our mean erect length of **16.62 cm** is notably higher than the **13.58 cm** reported in Habous et al.'s (2025) meta-analysis. This difference likely reflects: 1. **Self-report bias:** Users may overestimate or round up measurements 2. **Selection bias:** Those with larger measurements may be more likely to share 3. **Measurement technique:** Users may not follow strict bone-pressed methodology ### 4.2 Self-Selection Considerations It's important to note that this is self-reported data from voluntary participants. The actual population average is likely closer to clinical studies (13-14 cm). This dataset is valuable for: - Understanding user behavior and psychology - Identifying geographic patterns in calculator usage - Providing reference points within the self-reported context --- ## 5. Limitations 1. **Self-reported data:** Cannot verify measurement accuracy or technique 2. **Voluntary participation:** May attract users with size concerns or confidence 3. **Internet access bias:** Dataset skews toward populations with technology access 4. **Temporal window:** 6-month collection period may not capture seasonal variation 5. **Questionnaire completion:** Only 7% completed optional demographic questions --- ## 6. Conclusion This analysis of 67,130 validated submissions represents one of the largest collections of penile measurement data to date. While self-reported values trend higher than clinical measurements, the dataset provides valuable insights into: - **Population-level patterns** across 160 countries - **Psychological correlations** between size anxiety and calculator usage - **Health associations** worth further clinical investigation The strong length-girth correlation (r = 0.61) and significant erect-flaccid difference (Cohen's d = 1.40) align with anatomical expectations, lending some validity to user-submitted data patterns. --- ## Calculate Your Own Percentile Curious where you stand? Use our scientifically-calibrated Penis Size Calculator to get your personalized percentile ranking based on global data from over 67,000 measurements. **[Try the Penis Size Calculator →](/tools/penis-size-calculator)** Our calculator uses the latest 2025 Habous meta-analysis data combined with insights from this study to provide accurate, research-based percentile rankings. --- *Data collected from anonymous submissions to the Penis Size Calculator tool between July 2025 and January 2026. All data is anonymized and collected with user consent. IP addresses are used only for geographic statistics and duplicate detection.* *Last updated: January 2026 | Total submissions analyzed: 67,130*