Best Beach Water Quality Destinations in Europe

These rankings are based on official monitored bathing-water classifications published by the European Environment Agency for the 2025 bathing season. Each destination is scored from the coastal bathing waters monitored around it, using the Excellent, Good, Sufficient and Poor classes reported under the EU Bathing Water Directive.

35 destinations met the minimum evidence requirement of three classified bathing waters. Scores describe microbiological water quality during the monitored season only.

Country

Minimum score

Sort

Only 10+ monitored sites

35 destinations ranked by bathing water quality

European destinations ranked by official EEA bathing water classifications
#	Destination	Country	Bathing Water Score	Monitored sites	Quality breakdown	Trend
1	Crete	Greece	100 / 100	176region-wide	175 Excellent · 1 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
2	Corfu	Greece	100 / 100	68region-wide	68 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
3	Athens	Greece	100 / 100	55within 25 km	55 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
4	Dubrovnik	Croatia	100 / 100	51within 25 km	51 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
5	Malaga	Spain	100 / 100	41within 25 km	41 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
6	Faro	Portugal	100 / 100	27within 25 km	27 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
7	Marbella	Spain	100 / 100	25within 25 km	25 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
8	Mykonos	Greece	100 / 100	19within 25 km	19 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
9	Santorini	Greece	100 / 100	7within 25 km	7 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
10	Sardinia	Italy	99 / 100	663region-wide	643 Excellent · 15 Good · 4 Sufficient · 1 Poor	Stable
11	Split	Croatia	99 / 100	79within 25 km	75 Excellent · 3 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
12	Copenhagen	Denmark	99 / 100	57within 25 km	53 Excellent · 4 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Improving
13	Barcelona	Spain	99 / 100	37within 25 km	35 Excellent · 2 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Improving
14	Alicante	Spain	99 / 100	36within 25 km	34 Excellent · 2 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
15	Algarve	Portugal	98 / 100	107region-wide	100 Excellent · 6 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
16	Tenerife	Spain	98 / 100	61region-wide	56 Excellent · 4 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
17	Rome	Italy	97 / 100	53within 40 km	45 Excellent · 7 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Improving
18	Venice	Italy	97 / 100	37within 25 km	32 Excellent · 4 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
19	Porto	Portugal	96 / 100	52within 25 km	46 Excellent · 4 Good · 1 Sufficient · 1 Poor	Stable
20	Amalfi Coast	Italy	96 / 100	48region-wide	43 Excellent · 3 Good · 1 Sufficient · 1 Poor	Improving
21	Amsterdam	Netherlands	96 / 100	5within 25 km	4 Excellent · 1 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Improving
22	Rhodes	Greece	95 / 100	52region-wide	39 Excellent · 13 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Declining
23	Sicily	Italy	94 / 100	726region-wide	618 Excellent · 68 Good · 20 Sufficient · 20 Poor	Declining
24	Madeira	Portugal	94 / 100	60region-wide	51 Excellent · 5 Good · 2 Sufficient · 2 Poor	Improving
25	Lisbon	Portugal	94 / 100	34within 25 km	26 Excellent · 6 Good · 2 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
26	Cannes	France	90 / 100	105within 25 km	71 Excellent · 27 Good · 3 Sufficient · 4 Poor	Declining
27	Ibiza	Spain	90 / 100	41region-wide	25 Excellent · 12 Good · 4 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Declining
28	Palma de Mallorca	Spain	90 / 100	34within 25 km	20 Excellent · 12 Good · 2 Sufficient · 0 Poor	Stable
29	Nice	France	89 / 100	116within 25 km	70 Excellent · 38 Good · 5 Sufficient · 3 Poor	Declining
30	Naples	Italy	89 / 100	83within 25 km	67 Excellent · 5 Good · 5 Sufficient · 6 Poor	Improving
31	Palermo	Italy	89 / 100	55within 25 km	33 Excellent · 18 Good · 3 Sufficient · 1 Poor	Declining
32	Marseille	France	87 / 100	49within 25 km	34 Excellent · 8 Good · 4 Sufficient · 3 Poor	Declining
33	Valencia	Spain	86 / 100	30within 25 km	21 Excellent · 4 Good · 3 Sufficient · 2 Poor	Stable
34	Dublin	Ireland	85 / 100	19within 25 km	11 Excellent · 5 Good · 2 Sufficient · 1 Poor	Improving
35	Stockholm	Sweden	82 / 100	9within 25 km	6 Excellent · 1 Good · 1 Sufficient · 1 Poor	Declining

1. CreteGreece
100 / 100
Based on 176 monitored bathing waters across the destination
175 Excellent · 1 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
2. CorfuGreece
100 / 100
Based on 68 monitored bathing waters across the destination
68 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
3. AthensGreece
100 / 100
Based on 55 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
55 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
4. DubrovnikCroatia
100 / 100
Based on 51 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
51 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
5. MalagaSpain
100 / 100
Based on 41 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
41 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
6. FaroPortugal
100 / 100
Based on 27 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
27 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
7. MarbellaSpain
100 / 100
Based on 25 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
25 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
8. MykonosGreece
100 / 100
Based on 19 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
19 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
9. SantoriniGreece
100 / 100
Based on 7 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
7 Excellent · 0 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
10. SardiniaItaly
99 / 100
Based on 663 monitored bathing waters across the destination
643 Excellent · 15 Good · 4 Sufficient · 1 Poor
Trend: Stable
11. SplitCroatia
99 / 100
Based on 79 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
75 Excellent · 3 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
12. CopenhagenDenmark
99 / 100
Based on 57 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
53 Excellent · 4 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Improving
13. BarcelonaSpain
99 / 100
Based on 37 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
35 Excellent · 2 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Improving
14. AlicanteSpain
99 / 100
Based on 36 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
34 Excellent · 2 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
15. AlgarvePortugal
98 / 100
Based on 107 monitored bathing waters across the destination
100 Excellent · 6 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
16. TenerifeSpain
98 / 100
Based on 61 monitored bathing waters across the destination
56 Excellent · 4 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
17. RomeItaly
97 / 100
Based on 53 monitored bathing waters within 40 km
45 Excellent · 7 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Improving
18. VeniceItaly
97 / 100
Based on 37 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
32 Excellent · 4 Good · 1 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
19. PortoPortugal
96 / 100
Based on 52 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
46 Excellent · 4 Good · 1 Sufficient · 1 Poor
Trend: Stable
20. Amalfi CoastItaly
96 / 100
Based on 48 monitored bathing waters across the destination
43 Excellent · 3 Good · 1 Sufficient · 1 Poor
Trend: Improving
21. AmsterdamNetherlands
96 / 100
Based on 5 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
4 Excellent · 1 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Improving
22. RhodesGreece
95 / 100
Based on 52 monitored bathing waters across the destination
39 Excellent · 13 Good · 0 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Declining
23. SicilyItaly
94 / 100
Based on 726 monitored bathing waters across the destination
618 Excellent · 68 Good · 20 Sufficient · 20 Poor
Trend: Declining
24. MadeiraPortugal
94 / 100
Based on 60 monitored bathing waters across the destination
51 Excellent · 5 Good · 2 Sufficient · 2 Poor
Trend: Improving
25. LisbonPortugal
94 / 100
Based on 34 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
26 Excellent · 6 Good · 2 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
26. CannesFrance
90 / 100
Based on 105 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
71 Excellent · 27 Good · 3 Sufficient · 4 Poor
Trend: Declining
27. IbizaSpain
90 / 100
Based on 41 monitored bathing waters across the destination
25 Excellent · 12 Good · 4 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Declining
28. Palma de MallorcaSpain
90 / 100
Based on 34 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
20 Excellent · 12 Good · 2 Sufficient · 0 Poor
Trend: Stable
29. NiceFrance
89 / 100
Based on 116 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
70 Excellent · 38 Good · 5 Sufficient · 3 Poor
Trend: Declining
30. NaplesItaly
89 / 100
Based on 83 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
67 Excellent · 5 Good · 5 Sufficient · 6 Poor
Trend: Improving
31. PalermoItaly
89 / 100
Based on 55 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
33 Excellent · 18 Good · 3 Sufficient · 1 Poor
Trend: Declining
32. MarseilleFrance
87 / 100
Based on 49 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
34 Excellent · 8 Good · 4 Sufficient · 3 Poor
Trend: Declining
33. ValenciaSpain
86 / 100
Based on 30 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
21 Excellent · 4 Good · 3 Sufficient · 2 Poor
Trend: Stable
34. DublinIreland
85 / 100
Based on 19 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
11 Excellent · 5 Good · 2 Sufficient · 1 Poor
Trend: Improving
35. StockholmSweden
82 / 100
Based on 9 monitored bathing waters within 25 km
6 Excellent · 1 Good · 1 Sufficient · 1 Poor
Trend: Declining

How the Bathing Water Score works

Official data: every classification comes from the European Environment Agency bathing water dataset for 2025. Classifications are used exactly as published and are never reinterpreted.
Matching: only coastal and transitional bathing waters are considered. For a normal destination, sites within 25 km of its coordinates are used; if fewer than three classified sites are found, the radius expands to 40 km.
Islands and regions: broad destinations such as Sardinia, Sicily, Crete, Rhodes, Corfu, Ibiza, Tenerife, Madeira, the Algarve and the Amalfi Coast use an explicit geographic boundary for the island or region instead of a single centre point.
Minimum sample: a destination needs at least three classified bathing waters to be ranked. Destinations below that threshold are excluded rather than estimated.
Weights: Excellent 100, Good 80, Sufficient 55, Poor 0. The score is the average of those weights across all matched classified sites, rounded to the nearest whole number.
Not classified: sites with no classification are excluded from the score entirely, so they never raise or lower a destination’s result.
Sample size is shown, never rewarded. A destination with three monitored bathing waters is not more certain than one with forty, and the score is not boosted by the number of sites.
Trend: each season from 2015 to 2025 is scored with the same weights, counting only seasons where at least three matched sites — and at least half of them — carry a classification. A trend is shown only when at least five such seasons exist. The average of the three earliest qualifying seasons is compared with the average of the three most recent: a change of at least 2 points is Improving or Declining, anything smaller is Stable.

About the data

EEA classifications measure microbiological bathing water quality using the indicators Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci, as set out in the EU Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC). Each classification reflects sampling across the bathing season at a specific monitored bathing water.

This score does not measure beach beauty, sand quality, facilities, lifeguard presence, waves, water temperature or overall travel safety. It is a summary of official water-quality classifications only.

Source: European Environment Agency (EEA), Bathing Water Quality 2025. Bathing water data and coordinates are supplied by member state authorities. 14,861 coastal and transitional bathing waters were retrieved for this edition.