As of 2026-07-15, Asmara scores 0.0/100 (Critical) on the Compassion Benchmark, ranking #245 of 250 in the Global Cities Index.
Global Cities Index · 2026
Asmara
Rank 46 of 47 in Afric · Bottom 4% of cohort
Foundational compassion practices are absent or documented active harm is present.
How to read the scores
The 0–100 scale — five bands
Every entity — state, corporation, AI lab, robotics lab, or city — is scored 0–100 across 8 dimensions and 40 subdimensions. The composite score places the entity in one of five bands:
The 8 dimensions
Each dimension is scored 1–5 across 5 subdimensions (40 subdimensions total), then converted to a 0–100 composite. A score of 1.0 on a subdimension represents the minimum anchor; 5.0 is exemplary conduct.
Scores are based on public evidence — government reports, regulatory filings, independent audits, judicial findings, and verifiable third-party records. Entities never pay for inclusion, score changes, or suppression of findings. Full methodology
Strongest: Awareness · Weakest: Awareness
Afric cohort distribution
Not yet reassessed since publication — interpret with caution.
Compassion framework
8 dimensions, scored 0–5
Each dimension rolls up five subdimensions with five-level behavioral anchors. See the methodology for anchor definitions and weighting.
Note: radar area can visually exaggerate differences — read the per-axis values, not the area.
Source: Compassion Benchmark · CC-BY
Each axis shows a 0–5 dimension score. The polygon shape reveals where this entity concentrates strength and where it falls short across the 8 compassion dimensions.
The dashed overlay is the Global Cities Index average — gaps between the two polygons show above/below-average dimensions.
See dimension bars
Consistency is rewarded: strong, even performance across all eight dimensions earns up to +10 points; any dimension at zero (active harm) cancels the bonus.
0.0 base score+0.0 integration premium=0.0 composite
Uneven profile (std dev 0.00) — integration premium reduced to +0.0 pts.
How the composite is calculated
Base score: Average of all 8 dimension scores → converted to a 0–100 scale. 0.0 pts here.
Integration premium: Up to +10 pts for a balanced, high-floor profile. Gates:
- Harm flag (any dimension = 0): Clear
- Consistency multiplier (std dev = 0.00): 1.00× (1.0× if std dev ≤ 1.5; 0.75× ≤ 3.0; 0.4× ≤ 5.0; 0.1× above)
- Weakness factor (8 dims below 4.0): 0.00× (1 − 0.2 × weak dimensions, clamped to 0)
Formula: base + 10 × consistency × weakness = 0.0 + 0.0 = 0.0
Awareness
Does this entity reliably detect when others are in pain or need — before they name it?
What Awareness measures · Level 1 reference
Awareness measures whether an institution proactively detects suffering, distress, and need among its stakeholders — including signals that are implicit, indirect, or nested inside functional requests.
Around a score of 1, Awareness typically looks like:
- ·Suffering Detection: Problems discovered only through crises or media
- ·Contextual Sensitivity: Uniform processes regardless of population
- ·Blind Spot Mitigation: No process for identifying who is missed
- ·Signal Amplification: No alternative channels for low-power voices
- ·Anticipatory Awareness: No harm assessment before major decisions
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Asmara’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Empathy
Does this entity genuinely connect with the inner experience of those it serves?
What Empathy measures · Level 1 reference
Empathy measures whether an institution responds to emotional content with genuine presence — not with hollow affirmations, rushed problem-solving, or premature pivot to advice.
Around a score of 1, Empathy typically looks like:
- ·Affective Resonance: Interactions are purely transactional
- ·Perspective-Taking: Decisions without considering experience of those affected
- ·Non-Judgment: Differential treatment undocumented or denied
- ·Validation: Harm reports met with legal review before acknowledgment
- ·Cultural Empathy: Cultural adaptation means translating documents only
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Asmara’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Action
Does compassionate understanding translate into real, proportional, effective help?
What Action measures · Level 1 reference
Action measures whether awareness and empathy translate into genuinely useful responses — specific, accurate, locally relevant, and proportionate to urgency.
Around a score of 1, Action typically looks like:
- ·Responsiveness: No defined response standards, urgency not differentiated
- ·Proportionality: Standard response regardless of need level
- ·Efficacy: No outcome measurement beyond activity metrics
- ·Resource Mobilization: Resource allocation by historical patterns, not need
- ·Follow-Through: Engagement ends when presenting problem resolved
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Asmara’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Equity
Is care distributed fairly — especially toward those with greatest need and least power?
What Equity measures · Level 1 reference
Equity measures whether the benefits and burdens of institutional practices fall equitably across all groups — in pay, access, service quality, and power.
Around a score of 1, Equity typically looks like:
- ·Universality: Entire populations effectively excluded
- ·Priority for Vulnerable: Resources flow toward easiest-to-serve under scarcity
- ·Bias Awareness: No disaggregated outcome data, bias denied
- ·Access Design: Access barriers not systematically identified
- ·Historical Harm Acknowledgment: Historical harms denied or treated as irrelevant
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Asmara’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Boundaries
Is helping sustainable, ethical, and autonomy-preserving — not dependency-creating?
What Boundaries measures · Level 1 reference
Boundaries measures whether an institution maintains ethical limits, protects its people from depletion, and refuses harmful practices even when they are profitable.
Around a score of 1, Boundaries typically looks like:
- ·Self-Sustainability: Frontline staff chronically depleted, burnout individual problem
- ·Autonomy Preservation: Help requires continued institutional involvement
- ·Scope Clarity: Scope overstated, limitations discovered only after investment
- ·Refusal Ethics: People turned away without explanation or alternatives
- ·Consent Orientation: Consent as legal formality, forms not informative
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Asmara’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Accountability
Does this entity own its failures, correct course, and make genuine repair?
What Accountability measures · Level 1 reference
Accountability measures whether an institution acknowledges harm honestly, accepts corrections, maintains honesty under pressure, and provides calibrated transparency about its own nature and limitations.
Around a score of 1, Accountability typically looks like:
- ·Harm Acknowledgment: Harm denied or attributed to the affected person
- ·Correction Willingness: Harmful practices continue even when documented
- ·Transparency: Performance data not public, only positives shared
- ·Systemic Learning: Failures addressed individually, same failures recur
- ·Reparative Action: No repair beyond minimal legal settlement
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Asmara’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Systemic Thinking
Does compassion extend to root causes and structural change — not only symptom relief?
What Systemic Thinking measures · Level 1 reference
Systems Thinking measures whether an institution helps understand structural and systemic causes of problems, advocates for structural change, and plans for long-horizon effects.
Around a score of 1, Systemic Thinking typically looks like:
- ·Root Cause Orientation: All resources at symptom relief, root causes not discussed
- ·Long-Term Impact: Planning horizon is one budget cycle
- ·Interconnection Awareness: No awareness of second-order effects
- ·Structural Critique: Does not question structures that sustain need for its services
- ·Coalitional Compassion: Works in isolation, no resource or learning sharing
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Asmara’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
Integrity
Is compassion genuine, consistent, and non-performative — especially when it costs something?
What Integrity measures · Level 1 reference
Integrity measures whether an institution behaves consistently regardless of who is watching, whether its values-behavior gap is acknowledged, and whether it prioritizes genuine interests over appearances.
Around a score of 1, Integrity typically looks like:
- ·Consistency Under Pressure: Commitments abandoned under financial or political pressure
- ·Non-Performance: Compassionate practices only where reputationally beneficial
- ·Internal Consistency: Internal culture significantly less compassionate than external comms
- ·Values Alignment: Decisions regularly contradict stated values without acknowledgment
- ·Resilience of Care: Compassionate practices are personality-dependent
This is a level-1 reference ladder, not a claim about Asmara’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).
How it compares to the field, dimension by dimension
Each bar shows Asmara’s score above or below the index average for that dimension. Zero baseline = field average.
Score-Watch Alert
$79/yrBe first to know when Asmara’s score changes
Email alert the moment overnight research moves Asmara’s composite score — with the delta, headline evidence, and band change flag. One year of continuous monitoring. Cancel anytime.
Embed this score on your site
Preview
Embed code
<a href="https://compassionbenchmark.com/city/asmara"><img src="https://api.compassionbenchmark.com/badge/asmara.svg" alt="Compassion Benchmark score" /></a>
Free. The badge auto-updates when scores change.
Full dataset
Asmara is one of 250 cities in the Global Cities Index
Purchase the full index for methodology, sector/peer comparisons, subdimension breakdowns, and evidence sources.
Purchase Global Cities Index — $195Follow Asmara — free
Get Asmara's score changes in the free weekly email
Track Asmara and its Global Cities Indexpeers — free, every Friday. One email with the week's biggest score moves across Global Cities Index. We'll surface Asmara when its score changes. Unsubscribe anytime.
Discovery
Compare across the field
Closest Afric peers
Nearest rank neighbours
Index extremes