Along with your looks, personality, interests and employment status, your location can influence your odds of finding a romantic partner. Everyone has different priorities when searching for love, but certain places simply make dating easier than others.
In states with a low cost of living, for instance, your income might stretch a lot further, which means cheaper or more frequent dates. That’s an attractive option considering current inflation levels. If you’re more financially stable, though, you might appreciate a state with more attractions so both you and your potential other half can enjoy unique dates. Dating is also a numbers game, so a state with a higher proportion of single adults automatically improves your prospects.
Which states provide the best conditions for dating? To answer that question, WalletHub compared the 50 states across 29 key indicators of dating-friendliness. Our data set ranges from the share of single adults to the unemployment rate for singles to restaurants per capita. You can also check out WalletHub’s Best & Worst Cities for Singles report to see how your ZIP code affects your chances of finding love.
Chip Lupo, WalletHub Analyst
Main Findings
Best & Worst States for Singles
| Overall Rank | State | Total Score | Dating Opportunities Rank | Dating Economics Rank | Romance & Fun Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Florida | 68.21 | 3 | 34 | 2 |
| 2 | New York | 67.86 | 2 | 49 | 1 |
| 3 | California | 67.12 | 1 | 50 | 3 |
| 4 | Texas | 66.99 | 5 | 16 | 4 |
| 5 | Illinois | 61.86 | 6 | 38 | 6 |
| 6 | Pennsylvania | 61.80 | 7 | 32 | 5 |
| 7 | Wisconsin | 60.70 | 12 | 12 | 7 |
| 8 | Massachusetts | 60.10 | 4 | 41 | 10 |
| 9 | Ohio | 59.35 | 13 | 20 | 8 |
| 10 | Minnesota | 57.86 | 19 | 3 | 11 |
| 11 | New Jersey | 56.91 | 8 | 25 | 15 |
| 12 | Georgia | 56.82 | 10 | 21 | 16 |
| 13 | Virginia | 56.39 | 20 | 6 | 21 |
| 14 | Missouri | 56.29 | 26 | 7 | 9 |
| 15 | Michigan | 56.21 | 9 | 27 | 18 |
| 16 | North Carolina | 54.70 | 21 | 23 | 12 |
| 17 | Arizona | 54.11 | 17 | 18 | 23 |
| 18 | Nevada | 54.07 | 11 | 28 | 28 |
| 19 | Colorado | 53.84 | 24 | 17 | 13 |
| 20 | Oregon | 52.67 | 15 | 45 | 14 |
| 21 | Washington | 52.60 | 18 | 37 | 19 |
| 22 | Connecticut | 52.39 | 14 | 36 | 22 |
| 23 | New Hampshire | 51.86 | 25 | 15 | 24 |
| 24 | Maryland | 51.63 | 16 | 30 | 30 |
| 25 | Utah | 51.16 | 36 | 1 | 34 |
| 26 | Tennessee | 51.02 | 28 | 33 | 17 |
| 27 | Louisiana | 50.03 | 23 | 44 | 20 |
| 28 | Indiana | 49.59 | 34 | 13 | 25 |
| 29 | Rhode Island | 49.23 | 22 | 42 | 33 |
| 30 | Vermont | 47.93 | 29 | 26 | 38 |
| 31 | Alabama | 47.55 | 33 | 14 | 37 |
| 32 | Nebraska | 47.40 | 40 | 5 | 31 |
| 33 | Oklahoma | 46.71 | 37 | 11 | 36 |
| 34 | Maine | 46.05 | 38 | 31 | 27 |
| 35 | Iowa | 45.49 | 41 | 10 | 29 |
| 36 | Montana | 44.11 | 43 | 19 | 26 |
| 37 | Mississippi | 44.08 | 32 | 35 | 44 |
| 38 | Delaware | 43.93 | 30 | 24 | 50 |
| 39 | Idaho | 43.56 | 44 | 9 | 35 |
| 40 | Hawaii | 43.41 | 35 | 43 | 40 |
| 41 | New Mexico | 42.67 | 27 | 46 | 49 |
| 42 | South Carolina | 42.60 | 39 | 29 | 39 |
| 43 | Kansas | 42.33 | 45 | 8 | 42 |
| 44 | South Dakota | 42.04 | 49 | 2 | 41 |
| 45 | Alaska | 41.23 | 31 | 48 | 48 |
| 46 | Kentucky | 38.67 | 46 | 47 | 32 |
| 47 | Wyoming | 38.39 | 48 | 22 | 43 |
| 48 | North Dakota | 38.11 | 50 | 4 | 45 |
| 49 | Arkansas | 38.00 | 42 | 40 | 47 |
| 50 | West Virginia | 36.48 | 47 | 39 | 46 |
Note: With the exception of “Total Score,” all of the columns in the table above depict the relative rank of that state, where a rank of 1 represents the best conditions for that metric category.
- Highest
- 1. New Mexico
- 2. Louisiana
- 3. Nevada
- 4. Rhode Island
- 5. New York
- Lowest
- 46. Kansas
- 47. Nebraska
- 48. Wyoming
- 49. Idaho
- 50. Utah
- Highest
- 1. New Hampshire
- 2. Wisconsin
- 3. Nevada
- 4. Nebraska
- 5. Vermont
- Lowest
- 46. Kansas
- 47. Hawaii
- 48. Georgia
- 49. North Carolina
- 50. Delaware
- Most
- 1. Colorado
- 2. California
- T-3. Utah
- T-3. Washington
- 5. New Jersey
- Fewest
- 46. New Mexico
- 47. Arkansas
- 48. Louisiana
- 49. West Virginia
- 50. Mississippi
- Most
- 1. Utah
- 2. Colorado
- 3. Massachusetts
- 4. Maryland
- 5. Georgia
- Fewest
- 46. Montana
- 47. Vermont
- 48. Iowa
- 49. South Dakota
- 50. West Virginia
- Highest
- 1. Utah
- 2. Virginia
- 3. Colorado
- 4. Minnesota
- 5. Washington
- Lowest
- 46. Maine
- 47. New Mexico
- 48. Mississippi
- 49. Louisiana
- 50. West Virginia
- Most
- T-1. California
- T-1. New York
- T-1. Florida
- T-1. Texas
- 5. Illinois
- Fewest
- 46. Vermont
- 47. Wyoming
- 48. South Dakota
- 49. North Dakota
- 50. Alaska
- Most
- T-1. California
- T-1. Texas
- 3. New York
- 4. Iowa
- 5. Washington
- Fewest
- 46. South Carolina
- 47. Alaska
- 48. Mississippi
- 49. Delaware
- 50. Rhode Island
- Lowest
- 1. New Hampshire
- 2. Maine
- 3. Idaho
- 4. Rhode Island
- 5. Connecticut
- Highest
- 46. Arkansas
- 47. Colorado
- 48. Tennessee
- 49. Louisiana
- 50. New Mexico
In-Depth Look at the Best States for Singles
Florida
Florida is the best state for singles in part due to its large variety of attractions. For example, it ranks at the top of the nation for the number of amusement parks, restaurants and music festivals per capita, and is one of the top states for attractions in general. That’s not too surprising for the home of Disney and Universal. And for people who want to stay active, the state has the third-most fitness centers and seventh-most parks per capita.
In addition to having a lot of great places to hold dates, the Sunshine State has a population that’s single and looking for love. People in Florida search Google for the names of the top dating websites (Tinder, Match.com, Eharmony), plus general terms like “dating” and “online dating,” more than residents of most other states.
Finally, Florida has the sixth-best annual job growth rate in the country, so it’s easy to find gainful employment to support yourself and your dating life.
New York
The second-best state for singles is New York, in large part due to the abundance of venues for dating. New York has an extremely high number of attractions and restaurants per capita, and it ranks very high when it comes to the number of bars, movie theaters, amusement parks and nightlife options per capita.
New York is also great for singles due to its demographics. It has the fifth-highest share of residents who are single (either never married, widowed, or divorced). It also has the second-best gender balance for singles ages 35-49 and fifth-best for singles ages 20-34.
On top of that, New York residents’ search history indicates that they are much more interested in dating than people in most other states.
California
California is the third-best state for singles, for much of the same reasons as the other top states. Since it’s such a large, heavily populated and diverse state, it provides endless opportunities for date venues. That includes an especially high number of music festivals, amusement parks, movie theaters, nature parks, and restaurants per capita. California residents also search online for dating-related terms at high rates.
One unique area where Californians stand out is relationship openness, ranking eighth in the nation. People in the Golden State are less likely than people in most states to show signs of “attachment avoidance,” or discomfort with intimacy, based on nationwide psychological surveys. In other words, if you’re looking for commitment, California is a good place to search.
Finally, California also can be a good place for your physical and mental health. It ranks sixth in the nation on the Sharecare Community Well-Being Index, which measures how healthy people are likely to be based on physical, emotional and financial factors, and access to key resources in one’s community.
Ask the Experts
Your marital status can affect, among many things, where you choose to live and how you spend your money. For additional insight on such topics, we asked a panel of experts for their thoughts on the following key questions:
- What should singles be looking for when choosing where to live?
- When, if ever, is it appropriate to ask someone you are dating about their finances, including their credit score and amount of debt?
- What tips do you have for saving money when dating?
- Do you think the economic benefits of virtual dating will lead to narrowing down potential face-to-face dates?
- Should local authorities work to make states more attractive to single professionals? If so, how?
Ask the Experts
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Marriage and Close Relationships Lab – University of California, Los Angeles
Read More
Associate Professor of Psychology – New York University and Author of Clearer, Closer, Better: How Successful People See the World
Read More
Professor and Director, School of Communication and Media – University of Illinois at Springfield
Read More
Ph.D. – Director, Strategic Research – Saint Louis University
Read More
Professor, Director of Undergraduate Studies, The Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy, Department of Sociology – Cornell University
Read More
Ph.D. – Professor and Chair, Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology – University of California, Santa Barbara
Read More
Methodology
In order to identify the best and worst states for singles, WalletHub compared the 50 states across three key dimensions: 1) Dating Economics, 2) Dating Opportunities and 3) Romance & Fun.
We evaluated those dimensions using 29 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with 100 representing the most favorable conditions for singles who are actively dating. Data for metrics marked with an asterisk (*) were available at the city level only, and in such cases we calculated a weighted average based on the size of the city population. For metrics marked with two asterisks (**), we used the square root of the population to calculate the population size in order to avoid overcompensating for minor differences across states.
We then determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order the states.
Dating Opportunities – Total Points: 50
- Share of Single Adults: Double Weight (~11.11 Points)
- Gender Balance of Singles: Double Weight (~11.11 Points)
Note: This metric measures the ratio of single women to single men, taking into account several age groups (20-34; 35-49; 50-64, 65 and older). - Online-Dating Opportunities: Full Weight (~5.56 Points)
Note: This metric was measured using the percentage of households with a broadband Internet connection. - Mobile-Dating Opportunities: Full Weight (~5.56 Points)
Note: This metric was measured using the percentage of adults who own a smartphone. - Online-Dating Participation: Double Weight (~11.11 Points)
Note: This metric measures the real intent of the population to find information about the following search terms: “Online dating,” “Dating,” “Tinder,” “Match.com” and “Eharmony”. “Real intent” is measured using the average monthly search volumes for those specific terms. - Openness to Relationships: Full Weight (~5.56 Points)
Note: This metric is based on the Attachment Avoidance Score, which comes from a survey of 127,000 adults who answered questions about fear of abandonment and discomfort with intimacy.
Dating Economics – Total Points: 25
- Average Beer & Wine Price*: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
- Average Starbucks Coffee Price: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
- Movie Costs*: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
- Beauty-Salon Costs*: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
- Haircut Costs*: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
- Median Annual Household Income: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
Note: This metric was adjusted for the cost of living. - Housing Affordability*: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
Note: This metric measures the price of rent for a one-bedroom apartment (adjusted for the median annual household income). - Job Growth Rate: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
- Median Credit Score: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
- Community Well-Being Index: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
Note: This metric refers to the Sharecare Community Well-Being Index Score. - Unemployment Rate for Single Population: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
Note: “Single Population” includes those who have never been married, are widowed or are divorced. - Underemployment Rate: Full Weight (~2.08 Points)
Romance & Fun – Total Points: 25
- Restaurants per Capita**: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
- Number of Attractions*: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
Note: “Attractions” include, for instance, museums, cultural performances and zoos, and exclude nightlife options. - Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions per Capita**: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
- Fitness & Recreational Facilities per Capita**: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
- Movie Theaters per Capita**: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
- Amusement Parks per Capita**: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
- Music Festivals per Capita**: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
- Nightlife Options per Capita**: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
- Access to Bars Grade**: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
Note: This grade is a combination of bars per square root of residents and bars per square mile. It is a measure of both the proximity (per square mile) and the availability (per capita). - Crime Rate: Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
- Online Dating Safety (Cyber Crime Rate): Full Weight (~2.27 Points)
Note: This metric measures the total number of internet crime complaints from each state.
Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected as of November 18, 2024 from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Council for Community and Economic Research, PriceListo, Esri's Updated Demographics - 2023 estimates (Market Potential: GfK MRI), Google Ads, Live Science, TransUnion, Internet Crime Complaint Center, TripAdvisor, Music Festival Wizard and Sharecare’s “Community Well-Being Index”.
WalletHub experts are widely quoted. Contact our media team to schedule an interview.