Scout Research
Which cities are hardest to be bored in
185 cities ranked · 19,744 analyzed places · computed 8/27/2026 · score out of 100
The research question
This is Scout's flagship index. Every other Scout index answers a narrower question — variety, affordability, date night, family outings. The Fun Index asks the broad one: if you have a free Saturday, a spare weeknight or three unplanned hours, how reliably can this city give you something good to do?
Scout tests that directly against a city's own inventory. It measures how many options are genuinely worth building an outing around, how different those outings would feel, whether ten standardized plans can actually be assembled from real places, whether the options are open when people are free, and whether different budgets and audiences are served. No Scout-published outing counts toward the score — publishing volume is coverage, not a characteristic of the city.
What a high score means
A high Fun score means it is hard to be bored here: deep, varied options that hold up across interests, budgets, audiences, dayparts and weather — not one great district or a strong nightlife strip.
What the index measures
Whether there are genuinely enough good options to build an outing around — measured in absolute terms, on a curve, and weighted toward well-reviewed places people actually use.
Whether Scout can build ten standardized outings from the city's real inventory — a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours, date night, a family outing, a cheap day, an outdoor day, a rainy-day fallback, an evening, a solo outing and a group outing.
Whether the options hold up morning through late night and on weekdays as well as weekends, and whether different budgets, audiences and non-drinkers are all served.
Headline result
The Scout Fun Index ranks 185 US cities on where is it easiest to find a genuinely good way to spend your free time, using 19,744 Scout-analyzed places. Phoenix leads at 90.7/100.
Rank #1 of 185 · 235 Scout places analyzed
91
Fun Tests Scout can build here
Why this city scored this way
Phoenix ranks #1 of 185 overall at 91. Its strongest component is things-to-do strength (91, #1 of 185, versus a 36.3 average). Its weakest component is availability at 82.2 (#10 of 185, average 76).
Rank #2 of 185 · 304 Scout places analyzed
86
Fun Tests Scout can build here
Why this city scored this way
Tucson ranks #2 of 185 overall at 86. Its strongest component is variety (97, #1 of 185, versus a 86.8 average). Its weakest component is availability at 81.9 (#16 of 185, average 76).
Rank #3 of 185 · 190 Scout places analyzed
84
Fun Tests Scout can build here
Why this city scored this way
Glendale ranks #3 of 185 overall at 84. Its strongest component is things-to-do strength (68.1, #4 of 185, versus a 36.3 average). Its weakest component is variety at 92.5 (#39 of 185, average 86.8).
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 91 while Tempe scores 77 — a 13.4-point gap between cities minutes apart. Weighted by its share of the index, things-to-do strength explains more of that gap than any other component (91 vs 53.7).
185 cities ranked.
02
Plotted against Scout Variety Index, the two measures move together only loosely. Aurora sits above the median on Scout Variety Index but below it on this index, while Gilbert 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
185 cities ranked.
03
Tucson clears the easy threshold on 10 of the 10 standardized Fun Tests — more than any other ranked city. Nationally the a good day for ~$25 a head is the hardest plan to build (2.2 average, 180 cities where Scout cannot build it at all) and the solo outing is the easiest (98.9 average).
Strong across the most Fun Tests
A fun Saturday
Three spontaneous hours
185 cities ranked.
04
San Francisco sits in the top quartile for things-to-do strength (47.4) yet scores 83.7 on variety against a 86.8 average across 185 ranked cities. There is plenty here — it just repeats.
185 cities ranked.
05
Tucson leads this test at 99.9 against a 91 average, while 0 of 185 ranked cities score below 55 — in those markets the evening inventory leans on bars once dinner is over.
185 cities ranked.
06
Nashville (83.2), Orlando (82.8), Dallas (82.7) hold up best across morning, afternoon, evening and late night as well as weekdays and weekends, against a 76 average. A city that only works after 9pm on a Saturday cannot score well here.
185 cities ranked.
07
Tucson leads accessibility at 93.3 versus a 80.7 average — free through premium budgets, couples through solo visitors, and plenty that does not depend on alcohol. Separately, Tucson handles a good day for about $25 a head better than any other ranked city (87.6).
Widest accessibility
A good day for ~$25 a head
Rainy-day fallback
185 cities ranked.
08
Phoenix scores 91 — 10.7 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 85 analyzed places.
Biggest overperformers
Strongest small-inventory cities
Best on things-to-do strength
Best on variety
Best on plan success
185 cities ranked.
Explore
Every component, side by side, with each city's strongest relative advantage.
Phoenix, AZ
91
Rank #1 · 235 places analyzed
Tucson, AZ
86
Rank #2 · 304 places analyzed
Which Fun Tests work in each city
Phoenix's biggest advantage
Things-To-Do Strength
91 vs 61.9 (#1 vs #5)
Tucson's biggest advantage
Plan Success
99.2 vs 89.8 (#1 vs #6)
Biggest difference
Things-To-Do Strength
29.1 point gap
Rankings
Search for any ranked city, filter by state, or expand the full table.
| Rank | City | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Phoenix | 91 |
| 2 | Tucson | 86 |
| 3 | Glendale | 84 |
| 4 | Scottsdale | 84 |
| 5 | Chandler | 83 |
| 6 | San Diego | 82 |
| 7 | Dallas | 81 |
| 8 | Las Vegas | 81 |
| 9 | Denver | 81 |
| 10 | New York | 80 |
| 11 | Mesa | 80 |
| 12 | Sedona | 80 |
| 13 | Seattle | 80 |
| 14 | Los Angeles | 79 |
| 15 | Colorado Springs | 79 |
| 16 | Washington | 79 |
| 17 | Orlando | 79 |
| 18 | Fort Worth | 79 |
| 19 | Richmond | 79 |
| 20 | Atlanta | 79 |
By dimension
Component leaderboards explain why cities land where they do overall.
Absolute depth of worthwhile activity inventory, on a saturation curve: going from 20 to 50 good options matters a lot, 50 to 150 still matters, 500 to 600 barely moves the score. Well-reviewed, high-volume places carry extra weight so depth means usable depth, not raw size.
Whether repeated outings would actually feel different — measured across activity category, kind of outing, indoor/outdoor, experience style and audience, using evenness and diminishing returns rather than raw counts.
Whether Scout can build ten standardized outings from the city's own inventory — a fun Saturday, a spontaneous three hours, date night, family outing, cheap day, outdoor day, rainy-day fallback, evening outing, solo outing and group outing — using distinct stops that satisfy category, price, daypart and audience constraints. No published Scout outing counts.
Whether the fun inventory is usable across common free-time windows: morning, afternoon, evening and late night, plus weekdays and weekends. Nightlife alone cannot carry the component.
Whether different kinds of people can realistically take part — across free, inexpensive, moderate and premium budgets; couples, families, groups and solo visitors; and indoor, outdoor, active, low-key, food, culture, entertainment and no-alcohol styles.
Diagnostics
Five ways a city can be fun, each derived from the same Fun Index components and standardized Fun Tests behind the main ranking — not from separate scores.
Where does Scout most consistently succeed when someone asks, “What should I do?”
Standardized plan-success performance across the ten Fun Tests — spontaneous outing, Saturday, date night, family, cheap day, indoor fallback, outdoor day, evening, solo and group.
Tucson, AZ10/10 Fun Tests at Strong
99Scout builds workable plans for 10 of the 10 tested scenarios, with a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night scoring strongest and a ~$25-a-head day weakest at 88.
Richmond, VA10/10 Fun Tests at Strong
98Scout builds workable plans for 10 of the 10 tested scenarios, with a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night scoring strongest and a ~$25-a-head day weakest at 84.
Lake Havasu City, AZ10/10 Fun Tests at Strong
98Scout builds workable plans for 10 of the 10 tested scenarios, with a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night scoring strongest and a ~$25-a-head day weakest at 81.
San Bernardino, CA10/10 Fun Tests at Strong
96Scout builds workable plans for 10 of the 10 tested scenarios, with a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night scoring strongest and a ~$25-a-head day weakest at 79.
Kingman, AZ10/10 Fun Tests at Strong
96Scout builds workable plans for 10 of the 10 tested scenarios, with a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night scoring strongest and date night weakest at 78.
plan success · 0–100
Where is fun available to the widest range of people and budgets?
Low-friction participation: free and low-cost depth, family and solo viability, non-alcohol options, daytime availability, indoor/outdoor mix and easy parking or walking. This is not a measure of ADA accessibility.
Tucson, AZfamily-viable options 100
96Free (87) and low-cost (97) depth holds up across families (100) and solo visitors (100), with a 88 score on the ~$25-a-head day test and 100 on easy parking and walking.
Phoenix, AZfamily-viable options 100
92Free (76) and low-cost (92) depth holds up across families (100) and solo visitors (100), with a 0 score on the ~$25-a-head day test and 99 on easy parking and walking.
Sedona, AZfamily-viable options 100
91Free (75) and low-cost (87) depth holds up across families (100) and solo visitors (100), with a 0 score on the ~$25-a-head day test and 97 on easy parking and walking.
San Diego, CAfamily-viable options 100
86Free (61) and low-cost (84) depth holds up across families (100) and solo visitors (99), with a 0 score on the ~$25-a-head day test and 97 on easy parking and walking.
Dallas, TXfamily-viable options 100
86Free (61) and low-cost (81) depth holds up across families (100) and solo visitors (99), with a 0 score on the ~$25-a-head day test and 98 on easy parking and walking.
accessibility · 0–100
Where does the city stay usable from morning through night?
Morning, afternoon, evening and late-night depth plus weekend availability. The weakest daypart pulls the score down, so a nightlife-only city cannot rank here.
Tucson, AZ4/4 dayparts covered
80Depth runs 100 morning, 100 afternoon and 98 evening — strongest in the morning, thinnest in the late night (89) — and the evening still scores 100 on the test that excludes bar-led plans.
Phoenix, AZ4/4 dayparts covered
79Depth runs 99 morning, 98 afternoon and 94 evening — strongest in the morning, thinnest in the late night (88) — and the evening still scores 100 on the test that excludes bar-led plans.
Dallas, TX4/4 dayparts covered
79Depth runs 97 morning, 96 afternoon and 92 evening — strongest in the morning, thinnest in the late night (90) — and the evening still scores 99 on the test that excludes bar-led plans.
San Diego, CA4/4 dayparts covered
78Depth runs 97 morning, 96 afternoon and 93 evening — strongest in the morning, thinnest in the late night (87) — and the evening still scores 99 on the test that excludes bar-led plans.
Las Vegas, NV4/4 dayparts covered
77Depth runs 95 morning, 94 afternoon and 93 evening — strongest in the morning, thinnest in the late night (88) — and the evening still scores 99 on the test that excludes bar-led plans.
all-day · 0–100
Which smaller markets provide surprisingly strong free-time options?
Ranked with the same Fun Index methodology, restricted to markets under 150,000 residents with at least 60 analyzed places so a thin dataset cannot inflate a small market.
Savannah, GA142,772 residents · 113 analyzed places
76Despite its size it clears 9 of 10 Fun Tests — strongest on a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night, with 11 activity categories at real depth and a 93 variety score.
Dayton, OH143,355 residents · 104 analyzed places
75Despite its size it clears 9 of 10 Fun Tests — strongest on a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night, with 11 activity categories at real depth and a 92 variety score.
Alexandria, VA148,892 residents · 93 analyzed places
74Despite its size it clears 9 of 10 Fun Tests — strongest on a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night, with 10 activity categories at real depth and a 91 variety score.
Provo, UT116,288 residents · 90 analyzed places
73Despite its size it clears 9 of 10 Fun Tests — strongest on a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night, with 9 activity categories at real depth and a 89 variety score.
Warren, MI134,873 residents · 82 analyzed places
72Despite its size it clears 9 of 10 Fun Tests — strongest on a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours and date night, with 9 activity categories at real depth and a 86 variety score.
Fun score · 0–100
Which cities combine depth, variety, availability and planning success most consistently?
The consumer-facing view of the Fun Index, weighted toward breadth of successful use cases: Fun Tests passed at Strong, activity categories with real depth, daypart coverage and overall plan-success rate.
Tucson, AZ10/10 tests Strong · 11 deep categories
97Passes 10 of 10 standardized Fun Tests (10 at Strong or better), keeps 11 activity categories at meaningful depth, covers 4 of 4 dayparts and scores 93 on budget and audience accessibility.
Richmond, VA10/10 tests Strong · 11 deep categories
96Passes 10 of 10 standardized Fun Tests (10 at Strong or better), keeps 11 activity categories at meaningful depth, covers 4 of 4 dayparts and scores 87 on budget and audience accessibility.
Phoenix, AZ9/10 tests Strong · 11 deep categories
91Passes 9 of 10 standardized Fun Tests (9 at Strong or better), keeps 11 activity categories at meaningful depth, covers 4 of 4 dayparts and scores 93 on budget and audience accessibility.
San Diego, CA9/10 tests Strong · 11 deep categories
91Passes 9 of 10 standardized Fun Tests (9 at Strong or better), keeps 11 activity categories at meaningful depth, covers 4 of 4 dayparts and scores 92 on budget and audience accessibility.
Dallas, TX9/10 tests Strong · 11 deep categories
91Passes 9 of 10 standardized Fun Tests (9 at Strong or better), keeps 11 activity categories at meaningful depth, covers 4 of 4 dayparts and scores 92 on budget and audience accessibility.
breadth · 0–100
Methodology
The Scout Fun Index is Scout's flagship outcome index. It is computed entirely from Scout's database of verified places and place intelligence — categories, dayparts, prices, audiences, moods, indoor/outdoor attributes and review-weighted ratings — and asks a single question: can this city reliably give someone a good way to spend free time? It ignores how many outings Scout has published in a city, because publishing volume is Scout coverage, not a characteristic of the city.
This edition covers 185 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 25 of them are usable options that are not alcohol-led, at least four activity categories are represented, and at least six of the ten Fun Tests can be built — otherwise the city is shown as developing research coverage instead of being ranked.
How Scout builds the Fun score
Scout counts how many places in the city are worth building an outing around at all, on a curve: going from 20 to 50 good options changes a city, going from 500 to 600 does not.
Scout measures whether repeated outings would feel different, across activity category, kind of day, indoor/outdoor and experience style — using evenness, so one very deep category cannot carry a city.
Scout runs ten standardized Fun Tests against the city's real inventory: a fun Saturday, three spontaneous hours, date night, a family outing, a good day for about $25 a head, an outdoor day, a rainy-day fallback, an evening that isn't just drinking, a solo outing and a group outing. Each test needs distinct places filling distinct roles within any stated budget.
Scout checks availability across morning, afternoon, evening and late night, and across weekdays and weekends, so a nightlife-only city cannot top the index.
Scout checks accessibility across free, inexpensive, moderate and premium budgets, across couples, families, groups and solo visitors, and across options that do not depend on alcohol.
The five component scores are normalized onto 0–100 and weighted for comparison across cities.
Fun Index versus Scout Variety Index
The Variety Index answers how many different kinds of days a city offers. The Fun Index is broader: it asks whether those days can actually be pulled off — whether the options are deep enough, available at the right times, affordable to different people and assemblable into real outings. A city can be varied on paper and still score lower on Fun if its options are thin, hard to reach at the times people are free, or clustered at one price point.
How the score is built
Things-To-Do Strength (25%): Absolute depth of worthwhile activity inventory, on a saturation curve: going from 20 to 50 good options matters a lot, 50 to 150 still matters, 500 to 600 barely moves the score. Well-reviewed, high-volume places carry extra weight so depth means usable depth, not raw size.
Variety (20%): Whether repeated outings would actually feel different — measured across activity category, kind of outing, indoor/outdoor, experience style and audience, using evenness and diminishing returns rather than raw counts.
Plan Success (25%): Whether Scout can build ten standardized outings from the city's own inventory — a fun Saturday, a spontaneous three hours, date night, family outing, cheap day, outdoor day, rainy-day fallback, evening outing, solo outing and group outing — using distinct stops that satisfy category, price, daypart and audience constraints. No published Scout outing counts.
Availability (15%): Whether the fun inventory is usable across common free-time windows: morning, afternoon, evening and late night, plus weekdays and weekends. Nightlife alone cannot carry the component.
Accessibility (15%): Whether different kinds of people can realistically take part — across free, inexpensive, moderate and premium budgets; couples, families, groups and solo visitors; and indoor, outdoor, active, low-key, food, culture, entertainment and no-alcohol styles.
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.
Where this sits
Every other Scout index answers a narrower question. This one asks whether a city can reliably give you a good way to spend free time.
Fun Index
Broad outcome score. Depth of things worth doing, variety, whether ten standardized outings can actually be built from real places, when those options are open, and who can afford and use them.
Narrower question: how many different kinds of days a city offers. A city can look varied on paper and still score lower on Fun if its options are thin, hard to reach when people are free, or clustered at one price point.