头部城市呈现不同优势，鲜明特色不止于综合榜前十
北京，2026年11月12日——Brand Finance（品牌金融集团）发布首份《中国城市指数2026》。北京以86.3分位居综合榜首位，上海、杭州、深圳和成都分列第二至第五，指数满分为100分。研究显示，领先城市并非拥有相同的优势组合：北京在教育、文化和公共服务等方面获得较强认可，上海突出连接能力与文化生活，杭州、深圳和成都则分别呈现广泛的认知优势、创新创业特色与生活方式吸引力。鲜明的城市特色也不限于综合榜前十。
北京的特点是教育、文化和公共服务等多方面评价领先。在46项外地受访者认知属性中，北京有11项排名第一，数量居70座参评城市之首，其中包括城市治理、高等院校、中小学教育质量、医疗质量、博物馆与美术馆，以及安全等属性。从学习与文化活动到日常公共服务，这些评价呈现了北京较为广泛的认知优势。其综合榜首位不仅是一个名次，也对应公众在多个领域对这座城市的认可。
上海以80.8分位列综合榜第二，连接能力与文化生活是其突出的认知优势。上海在国内外连接能力、剧院与音乐演出场所两项属性评价中均排名第一，就业便利程度排名第三。在公众认知中，连接外部的便利、获得工作机会以及参与文化生活，共同构成上海的城市吸引力。这组评价让上海的品牌特点不只停留在商业机会，也延伸至工作之外的城市生活，为理解其面向企业、人才和访客的不同吸引力提供了具体内容。
杭州以79.6分位列综合榜第三，其特点不是单项评价居首，而是多项优势同时进入前列。在46项认知属性中，杭州没有一项排名第一，却有33项进入前十，数量为参评城市最多。其中，创业与创新机会、生活方式吸引力均排名第二，绿地与休闲空间排名第三。工作机会与日常生活方面的较强评价相互呼应，呈现了杭州的优势组合。北京拥有最多的单项第一，杭州则拥有最多的前十属性，这一对照提供了理解头部城市的不同视角。
深圳以79.1分位列综合榜第四，创新创业特色与营商环境认知相互呼应。深圳在创业与创新机会、科技发展水平，以及创业进取、勤奋实干的城市文化三项评价中均排名第一；经商便利程度和熟练劳动力可获得性两项评价也位列第一。这些评价既涉及创新机会，也涉及开展业务所需的条件，呈现了公众眼中较为连贯的创新创业城市形象。对于希望了解深圳的企业和人才，这组结果提供了比单一科技标签更具体的认识线索。
成都以76.4分位列综合榜第五，生活方式与文化体验构成其鲜明的认知特色。成都在生活方式吸引力、购物餐饮及夜生活、特色文化与旅游体验三项属性评价中均排名第一，绿地与休闲空间评价排名第四。这些优势既涉及访客的文化体验，也涉及日常生活中的休闲与消费，呈现了享受城市生活和感受地方文化相结合的特点。与深圳侧重创新创业的评价相比，成都的领先属性说明，综合榜靠前的城市可以具有不同的品牌优势。
鲜明的城市特色同样出现在综合榜前十之外。综合榜排名第十二的苏州，在建筑美感、城市清洁与环境关怀两项评价中均位列第一。建筑景观与城市环境共同呈现了公众眼中的苏州特色，说明综合名次之外的具体评价，同样能够帮助城市识别具有辨识度的优势。
从北京的教育文化与公共服务，到上海的连接能力、杭州的多项优势、深圳的创新创业和成都的生活文化，头部城市呈现了不同的认知优势组合。苏州则进一步说明，综合榜可以提供总体比较，具体属性评价能够揭示城市各自的特点。两者结合，才能更完整地理解公众眼中的城市品牌。
本地居民与外地受访者的评价，还提供了另一层比较。在70座参评城市中，绿地、安全和医疗等侧重本地体验的评价中，本地居民的评价均高于外地居民的评价。按46项属性计算本地评价减去外地评价的平均差值，59座城市为正，11座城市为负。差异的方向并不一致，城市需要逐项辨别哪些特点已获得广泛认可，哪些特点的外地评价仍低于本地评价。
对于城市管理者，研究提出的具体问题是：哪些已获公众认可的优势，最能体现本地特色，并与希望吸引的访客、人才和企业相关？头部城市的不同优势组合，以及苏州的具体特色，都为这一问题提供了比较线索。确定城市定位和传播重点，还需要结合本地服务数据与目标受众研究，而不能仅依据综合名次或某项领先评价作出判断。
Brand Finance中国董事总经理Scott Chen就研究结果表示：
“综合榜为比较城市品牌提供了共同基准，城市定位则需要进一步说明公众认可一座城市的具体理由。多项优势的组合与具有辨识度的单项特色，都应纳入研究。管理者需要以自身证据确定传播重点，而不是沿用相似的宣传表述。
“面向国际受众，创新机会、文化体验和城市环境是介绍中国城市的具体切入点。本次研究提供的是国内公众视角，海外目标市场的认知仍需另行研究。城市研究应帮助管理者识别本地特色，为体验改善和针对不同受众的传播提供依据。”
综合榜第六至第十五名依次为南京、广州、重庆、西安、青岛、武汉、苏州、长沙、天津和福州。完整榜单及各项属性结果可参阅《中国城市指数2026》报告。
《Brand Finance中国城市指数2026》基于一项全国性调查，由12,000名受访者对中国（含港澳台）70座主要城市进行评价。研究从商业与投资、文化与遗产、教育与科学、城市治理、宜居性、居民与价值观、可持续发展与交通七个维度考察城市品牌。其中，外地受访者认知是指居住在中国其他城市的受访者评价，并非海外样本评价。这项研究提供国内公众认知的比较基准，可与经济、访客及服务数据相互补充；国际受众认知需要另行研究。
Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. Bridging the gap between marketing and finance, Brand Finance evaluates the strength of brands and quantifies their financial value to help organisations make strategic decisions.
Headquartered in London, Brand Finance operates in over 25 countries. Every year, Brand Finance conducts more than 6,000 brand valuations, supported by original market research, and publishes over 100 reports which rank brands across all sectors and countries.
Brand Finance also operates the Global Brand Equity Monitor, conducting original market research annually on 6,000 brands, surveying more than 175,000 respondents across 41 countries and 31 industry sectors. By combining perceptual data from the Global Brand Equity Monitor with data from its valuation database — the largest brand value database in the world — Brand Finance equips ambitious brand leaders with the data, analytics, and the strategic guidance they need to enhance brand and business value.
In addition to calculating brand value, Brand Finance also determines the relative strength of brands through a balanced scorecard of metrics, compliant with ISO 20671.
Brand Finance is a regulated accountancy firm and a committed leader in the standardisation of the brand valuation industry. Brand Finance was the first to be certified by independent auditors as compliant with both ISO 10668 and ISO 20671 and has received the official endorsement of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) in the United States.
Brand is defined as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services, or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.
Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors. Brand Finance evaluates brand strength in a process compliant with ISO 20671, looking at Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of those on Business Performance. The data used is derived from Brand Finance’s proprietary market research programme and from publicly available sources.
Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+ in a format similar to a credit rating.
Brand Finance calculates the values of brands in its rankings using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668. It involves estimating the likely future revenues that are attributable to a brand by calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for its use, to arrive at a ‘brand value’ understood as a net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market.
The steps in this process are as follows:
1 Calculate brand strength using a balanced scorecard of metrics assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and Business Performance. Brand strength is expressed as a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score on a scale of 0 to 100.
2 Determine royalty range for each industry, reflecting the importance of brand to purchasing decisions. In luxury, the maximum percentage is high, while in extractive industry, where goods are often commoditised, it is lower. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database.
3 Calculate royalty rate. The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.
4 Determine brand-specific revenues by estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a brand.
5 Determine forecast revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.
6 Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues.
7 Discount post-tax brand revenues to a net present value which equals the brand value.
Brand Finance has produced this study with an independent and unbiased analysis. The values derived and opinions presented in this study are based on publicly available information and certain assumptions that Brand Finance used where such data was deficient or unclear. Brand Finance accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that the publicly available information relied upon is subsequently found to be inaccurate. The opinions and financial analysis expressed in the study are not to be construed as providing investment or business advice. Brand Finance does not intend the study to be relied upon for any reason and excludes all liability to any body, government, or organisation.
The data presented in this study form part of Brand Finance's proprietary database, are provided for the benefit of the media, and are not to be used in part or in full for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.
