Scout Research
Where a full day out doesn't have to wreck your wallet
206 cities ranked · 19,744 analyzed places · computed 8/27/2026 · score out of 100
The research question
Cheap-city rankings usually measure rent, groceries and utilities. This index measures something you feel on a Saturday: whether a city gives you enough free and low-cost places, spread across enough kinds of activity, to fill an actual day out.
Scout tests that directly. It takes the city's own priced inventory and tries to build standardized budget days — a free three-stop day, a $25-a-head day, a $50-a-head day, a date under $50 total and a family outing under $75 total. No Scout-published outing counts toward the score; how much Scout has published is coverage, not affordability.
What a high score means
A high Cheap Day score means a city has deep free and low-cost inventory across several kinds of activity, and Scout can build full low-budget days from it that are worth doing — not just one famous free park and a lot of cheap takeout.
What the index measures
Parks, trails, libraries, public space, free museum hours, markets and public art — measured for depth and spread, not a token handful.
Things you can genuinely do for about $20 a head or less, across categories, with cheap restaurants capped so food alone cannot carry a city.
Whether Scout can assemble standard low-budget days from the city's real inventory, and whether those cheap options are any good.
Headline result
The Scout Cheap Day Index ranks 206 US cities on which cities make it easiest to build a genuinely good day on a small budget, using 19,744 Scout-analyzed places. Tucson leads at 87.2/100.
Rank #1 of 206 · 304 Scout places analyzed
87
Budget days Scout can build here
Why this city scored this way
Tucson ranks #1 of 206 overall at 87. Its strongest component is free things to do (74.4, #1 of 206, versus a 32.5 average). Its weakest component is quality of affordable options at 50 (#3 of 206, average 50.2).
Rank #2 of 206 · 235 Scout places analyzed
87
Budget days Scout can build here
Why this city scored this way
Phoenix ranks #2 of 206 overall at 87. Its strongest component is quality of affordable options (73.2, #1 of 206, versus a 50.2 average). Its weakest component is affordable variety at 97.3 (#2 of 206, average 77.6).
Rank #3 of 206 · 191 Scout places analyzed
82
Budget days Scout can build here
Why this city scored this way
Sedona ranks #3 of 206 overall at 82. Its strongest component is free things to do (63.9, #3 of 206, versus a 32.5 average). Its weakest component is low-cost things to do at 89.2 (#7 of 206, average 65.6).
Findings
Every observation below is computed from the ranked dataset on this page — component scores, ranks and measured gaps between cities.
01
In the Phoenix metro, Phoenix scores 87 while Gilbert scores 67 — a 19.3-point gap between cities minutes apart. Weighted by its share of the index, free things to do explains more of that gap than any other component (66.2 vs 32.1).
206 cities ranked.
02
Plotted against Scout Variety Index, the two measures move together only loosely. Yonkers sits above the median on Scout Variety Index but below it on this index, while Kingman does the reverse. A strong showing on one index does not carry over to the other.
Strong on both
Strong on Scout Variety Index, weaker here
Weaker on Scout Variety Index, strong here
206 cities ranked.
03
Scout could assemble a free three-stop day in 184 of 206 ranked cities. Tucson handles it most easily (98.8 versus a 74 average), because its free inventory spreads across enough different categories to fill a day rather than repeating the same kind of stop.
Easiest free days to build
206 cities ranked.
04
San Tan Valley scores 34.7 on low-cost things to do but only 10.7 on cheap day feasibility — a 24-point gap. Its inexpensive inventory clusters in too few categories to build a varied day at the tested budgets.
Cheap inventory outruns buildable days
206 cities ranked.
05
Across 206 ranked cities, the free 3-stop day is the hardest scenario to satisfy (74 average) while the $50/person day is the easiest (95.1 average). Each scenario requires stops in different categories that fit the budget, drawn only from the city's own priced inventory.
Free 3-stop day
$25/person day
$50/person day
Date under $50 total
Family outing under $75 total
206 cities ranked.
06
Phoenix posts the strongest review-weighted quality across its affordable set (73.2 versus a 50.2 average) while ranking #2 overall. Review-weighted Google rating of the low-cost set, shrunk toward the national average so a handful of five-star listings with a dozen reviews cannot outrank a deep, well-reviewed set. Requires a minimum number of rated low-cost places.
206 cities ranked.
07
Phoenix scores 87 — 21.7 points higher than the average city with a comparable amount of analyzed Scout inventory (235 places). Score is not a function of size: the median ranked city has 86 analyzed places.
Biggest overperformers
Strongest small-inventory cities
Best on free things to do
Best on low-cost things to do
Best on cheap day feasibility
206 cities ranked.
Explore
Every component, side by side, with each city's strongest relative advantage.
Tucson, AZ
87
Rank #1 · 304 places analyzed
Phoenix, AZ
87
Rank #2 · 235 places analyzed
Which days work in each city
Tucson's biggest advantage
Free Things To Do
74.4 vs 66.2 (#1 vs #2)
Phoenix's biggest advantage
Quality of Affordable Options
73.2 vs 50 (#1 vs #3)
Biggest difference
Quality of Affordable Options
23.2 point gap
Rankings
Search for any ranked city, filter by state, or expand the full table.
By dimension
Component leaderboards explain why cities land where they do overall.
Depth and breadth of genuinely free places and activities — parks, trails, libraries, public space, free museums, markets, public art and free community events. Categories only count once several free options exist, and each category's contribution flattens as it grows, so a handful of parks cannot carry the score.
Depth of things that can reasonably be done for about $20 a head or less, measured across categories. Cheap restaurants are capped so food alone cannot dominate the component.
Whether Scout can actually construct standardized low-budget days from the city's own inventory: a free three-stop day, a $25-a-head day, a $50-a-head day, a date under $50 total and a family outing under $75 total. Each scenario requires enough varied, appropriately tagged places at the right price — never a Scout-published outing.
Whether the cheap options span outdoors, arts and culture, food, family activities, entertainment, community and social places, indoor options and evening options — rather than one category repeated.
Review-weighted Google rating of the low-cost set, shrunk toward the national average so a handful of five-star listings with a dozen reviews cannot outrank a deep, well-reviewed set. Requires a minimum number of rated low-cost places.
Methodology
Scout computes The Scout Cheap Day Index from its own database of verified places and Scout place intelligence — prices, hours, categories, audiences and ratings. It deliberately ignores how many outings Scout has published in a city: publishing volume is Scout coverage, not evidence that a city is affordable.
This edition covers 206 cities and 19,744 AI-analyzed places. A city is only ranked once at least 30 of its published places have completed Scout's place-intelligence analysis, at least 20 of them carry a usable price signal, and at least four activity categories are represented — otherwise the city is shown as developing research coverage instead of being ranked.
How Scout builds the score
Scout identifies which places are genuinely free and which come in around $20 a head or less.
Scout checks how far those cheap options spread across outdoors, arts, food, family, entertainment, community, indoor and evening categories.
Scout then tries to build standardized low-budget days from the city's own inventory — a free three-stop day, a $25-a-head day, a $50-a-head day, a date under $50 total and a family outing under $75 total — requiring stops in different categories that fit the budget.
Scout evaluates the quality of the affordable set using review-weighted ratings, shrunk toward the national average so small samples cannot spike the score.
The five component scores are normalized onto 0–100 and weighted for comparison across cities.
How the score is built
Free Things To Do (25%): Depth and breadth of genuinely free places and activities — parks, trails, libraries, public space, free museums, markets, public art and free community events. Categories only count once several free options exist, and each category's contribution flattens as it grows, so a handful of parks cannot carry the score.
Low-Cost Things To Do (25%): Depth of things that can reasonably be done for about $20 a head or less, measured across categories. Cheap restaurants are capped so food alone cannot dominate the component.
Cheap Day Feasibility (25%): Whether Scout can actually construct standardized low-budget days from the city's own inventory: a free three-stop day, a $25-a-head day, a $50-a-head day, a date under $50 total and a family outing under $75 total. Each scenario requires enough varied, appropriately tagged places at the right price — never a Scout-published outing.
Affordable Variety (15%): Whether the cheap options span outdoors, arts and culture, food, family activities, entertainment, community and social places, indoor options and evening options — rather than one category repeated.
Quality of Affordable Options (10%): Review-weighted Google rating of the low-cost set, shrunk toward the national average so a handful of five-star listings with a dozen reviews cannot outrank a deep, well-reviewed set. Requires a minimum number of rated low-cost places.
Counts that could simply reward big cities are normalized: social infrastructure, events and bookable inventory are expressed per 100 published places, and variety measures use evenness rather than raw totals.
Scores are recomputed on every refresh, so a city's position moves as coverage deepens or as venues open and close. Underlying place data is verified against Google Places; outings are human- or AI-composed and reviewed before publishing.
Citing this study? Please credit Scout Places and link to this page.
This index measures
This index does not measure
Scores reflect the places, events and activity inventory present in the Scout dataset — not every business or activity that exists in a city. No component is divided by how much Scout has published in a city, and Scout-published outings are never counted as evidence — publishing volume is coverage, not a characteristic of the city. Cities without enough analyzed places, priced places or represented categories are left out of the rankings entirely. Coverage labels on this page describe Scout dataset completeness only; they are not statistical confidence intervals.