Beyond your looks, personality, interests and career, where you live can play a major role in your chances of finding a romantic partner. While everyone values different things when it comes to dating, some places naturally make it easier to meet and connect with others.
In states with a lower cost of living, your paycheck can go further, allowing for cheaper or more frequent dates, which is especially appealing amid ongoing inflation. On the other hand, those who are more financially secure may prefer states packed with attractions that make for more memorable and unique date experiences. Dating is also a numbers game, and living in a state with a larger share of single adults can significantly boost your odds.
So, which states offer the most dating-friendly environments? To find out, WalletHub compared all 50 states across 29 key metrics, including the share of single adults to the unemployment rate for singles to restaurants per capita. For a closer look at how your specific location stacks up, be sure to explore WalletHub’s Best & Worst Cities for Singles.
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 | 66.26 | 3 | 38 | 2 |
| 2 | New York | 64.55 | 2 | 49 | 1 |
| 3 | Texas | 64.21 | 6 | 18 | 4 |
| 4 | California | 63.69 | 1 | 50 | 3 |
| 5 | Illinois | 62.21 | 5 | 44 | 5 |
| 6 | Wisconsin | 59.57 | 11 | 11 | 7 |
| 7 | Pennsylvania | 59.20 | 7 | 45 | 6 |
| 8 | Massachusetts | 57.13 | 4 | 43 | 20 |
| 9 | Ohio | 57.04 | 16 | 19 | 8 |
| 10 | Minnesota | 56.33 | 22 | 5 | 9 |
| 11 | Michigan | 55.52 | 9 | 28 | 12 |
| 12 | Arizona | 54.70 | 18 | 20 | 13 |
| 13 | New Jersey | 54.60 | 14 | 22 | 16 |
| 14 | Virginia | 54.12 | 23 | 3 | 24 |
| 15 | Georgia | 53.90 | 19 | 14 | 19 |
| 16 | Missouri | 53.67 | 28 | 6 | 10 |
| 17 | Washington | 53.29 | 13 | 29 | 18 |
| 18 | Connecticut | 52.89 | 8 | 37 | 23 |
| 19 | Nevada | 52.65 | 15 | 26 | 21 |
| 20 | North Carolina | 52.35 | 21 | 30 | 15 |
| 21 | Oregon | 52.07 | 20 | 34 | 17 |
| 22 | Colorado | 51.52 | 29 | 17 | 14 |
| 23 | Rhode Island | 50.92 | 10 | 39 | 28 |
| 24 | Vermont | 50.16 | 12 | 24 | 42 |
| 25 | Maryland | 49.73 | 17 | 40 | 27 |
| 26 | Utah | 49.12 | 33 | 1 | 35 |
| 27 | Tennessee | 49.04 | 32 | 33 | 11 |
| 28 | New Hampshire | 48.08 | 30 | 13 | 30 |
| 29 | Louisiana | 47.38 | 25 | 48 | 22 |
| 30 | Indiana | 46.86 | 31 | 15 | 33 |
| 31 | Delaware | 45.88 | 24 | 23 | 50 |
| 32 | Maine | 44.98 | 35 | 25 | 31 |
| 33 | Oklahoma | 44.57 | 34 | 16 | 38 |
| 34 | Hawaii | 44.07 | 26 | 47 | 43 |
| 35 | Nebraska | 43.75 | 41 | 7 | 29 |
| 36 | Iowa | 43.68 | 39 | 12 | 32 |
| 37 | Montana | 43.51 | 44 | 9 | 25 |
| 38 | Alabama | 43.11 | 36 | 21 | 40 |
| 39 | Idaho | 42.40 | 40 | 10 | 36 |
| 40 | New Mexico | 42.34 | 27 | 42 | 47 |
| 41 | Kentucky | 40.79 | 42 | 31 | 26 |
| 42 | Kansas | 40.47 | 46 | 8 | 39 |
| 43 | Mississippi | 40.20 | 38 | 32 | 41 |
| 44 | South Dakota | 39.02 | 49 | 2 | 37 |
| 45 | South Carolina | 38.94 | 43 | 36 | 34 |
| 46 | Alaska | 38.76 | 37 | 41 | 49 |
| 47 | North Dakota | 36.05 | 50 | 4 | 44 |
| 48 | Wyoming | 35.32 | 47 | 27 | 48 |
| 49 | Arkansas | 35.20 | 45 | 46 | 46 |
| 50 | West Virginia | 34.25 | 48 | 35 | 45 |
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. Rhode Island
- 3. Louisiana
- 4. New York
- 5. Nevada
- Lowest
- 46. Nebraska
- 47. South Dakota
- 48. Utah
- T-49. Idaho
- T-49. Wyoming
- Highest
- 1. Vermont
- 2. Rhode Island
- 3. Wisconsin
- 4. Maine
- 5. Louisiana
- Lowest
- 46. South Carolina
- 47. New Hampshire
- 48. South Dakota
- 49. Georgia
- 50. North Dakota
- Most
- 1. New Hampshire
- 2. Nevada
- T-3. California
- T-3. Washington
- 5. Colorado
- Fewest
- T-46. Louisiana
- T-46. New Mexico
- 48. Wyoming
- 49. West Virginia
- 50. Mississippi
- Most
- 1. Utah
- 2. New Hampshire
- 3. Minnesota
- 4. Idaho
- 5. Connecticut
- Fewest
- 46. Louisiana
- 47. Arkansas
- 48. New York
- 49. Mississippi
- 50. West Virginia
- Highest
- 1. Utah
- 2. Virginia
- 3. Colorado
- 4. Washington
- 5. New Jersey
- Lowest
- 46. Mississippi
- 47. Maine
- 48. Rhode Island
- 49. West Virginia
- 50. Louisiana
- Most
- T-1. California
- T-1. New York
- T-1. Florida
- T-1. Texas
- 5. Illinois
- Fewest
- 46. Vermont
- 47. South Dakota
- 48. Wyoming
- 49. North Dakota
- 50. Alaska
- Most
- T-1. California
- T-1. Texas
- 3. New York
- 4. Iowa
- 5. Washington
- Fewest
- 46. Alaska
- 47. South Carolina
- 48. Mississippi
- 49. Delaware
- 50. Rhode Island
- Lowest
- 1. New Hampshire
- 2. Maine
- 3. Rhode Island
- 4. Idaho
- 5. Connecticut
- Highest
- 46. Arkansas
- 47. Louisiana
- 48. Tennessee
- 49. Colorado
- 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 eighth-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 fifth-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 the highest 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 fourth-highest share of residents who are single (either never married, widowed, or divorced). It also has the sixth-best gender balance for singles ages 35-49 and third-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.
Texas
Texas 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 attractions, amusement parks, movie theaters, nature parks, and restaurants per capita. Texas residents also search online for dating-related terms at high rates.
One unique area where Texans stand out is relationship openness, holding the 10th-highest position in the nation. People in the Lone Star 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, Texas is a good place to search.
Finally, Texas can also be a strong place for economic opportunity. The state has the third-highest employment growth in the nation, highlighting a robust job market and expanding opportunities for workers across a wide range of industries.
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
Ph.D. – Assistant Professor, Psychology - Texas Woman's University
Read More
Ph.D., CFLE, LMFT – Professor of Family Consumer Science – Minnesota State University, Mankato
Read More
Ph.D. – Emerita Professor of Sociology, University of Washington
Read More
Associate Professor, Marriage & Family Therapy - Brigham Young University
Read More
Ph.D. – Associate Professor of Practice, Human Development & Family Science, Norton School of Human Ecology - University of Arizona
Read More
Assistant Professor of Family Life – Brigham Young University
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 17, 2025 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 - 2024 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's personal finance experts are frequently cited by leading media outlets. Contact our media team to arrange an interview.