On February 4, 2026, the China Innovation Finance Institute, FINOVATURE, and the China Innovation Finance Institute | Chengdu jointly released the Global Innovation Finance Index (GIFI) and the Global Innovation Finance Index & Report (hereinafter referred to as the “Index” and the “Report”), and hosted a closed-door roundtable themed “Invest in Innovation to Shape Future.”
The Index and the Report offer a renewed analysis and definition of “Innovation Finance,” highlighting how finance can strategically and efficiently allocate more capital, tools, and mechanisms to key players and critical stages in technological innovation, thereby improving overall innovation efficiency and industrial competitiveness.
For the first time, the Index and the Report establish an “Innovation–Finance–Development” three-dimensional evaluation framework, build parallel domestic and international ranking systems, and assess the development of innovation finance across global cities.
Under the “Innovation–Finance–Development” framework, the Index adopts 77 indicators for domestic ranking and 43 indicators for international ranking. On this basis, the Index and the Report conduct in-depth study and assessment for 54 global cities and 50 domestic cities that are both financial centers and innovation hubs, focusing on global experience and local practices of how finance empowers innovation.
At the launch roundtable, Mr. Calvin Chenggang Fu, Chairman of the China Innovation Finance Institute, and Dr. Rui Ma, Senior Research Officer, elaborated on the research methodology, key findings, and recommendations of the Index and the Report. Dozens of experts from government agencies, international organizations, academic societies, professional associations, think tanks, universities, and enterprises gathered to discuss the study and offer in-depth comments.
Key Findings of the Report
The rankings of 54 global “innovation finance cities” place New York, San Francisco, London, Beijing, and Tokyo in the top five. Among the top 15 cities, seven are from Asia, four from North America, and four from Europe.
Among the global innovation finance cities, Chinese cities stand out: Beijing (4th), Hong Kong (8th), Shanghai (9th), and Shenzhen (12th) all enter the global top 15, highlighting China’s leading position in the global innovation finance landscape.
Other cities in the global top 15 include Tokyo (5th), Seoul (6th), Paris (7th), Singapore (10th), Chicago (11th), Toronto (13th), Zurich (14th), and Munich (15th).
From a continental perspective, North America leads comprehensively across Innovation (66.6), Finance (68.6), and Development (77.0). Europe follows, supported by strong foundations in Finance (68.6) and Development (76.5). Asia demonstrates vigorous momentum in Innovation (65.0), approaching North America and emerging as a new key engine of global innovation growth.
Notably, among the 54 leading global innovation finance cities, China performs particularly well with 16 cities making the list, accounting for more than a quarter of the total. This indicates that China has formed a multi-tiered innovation finance ecosystem, and has developed global-leading advantages in certain areas.
China’s Landscape: Highly Synergistic Development Pathways; Eastern Region Leads; Central and Western Region Rise
Among China’s 50 domestic innovation finance cities, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou rank within the top five. Nanjing, Wuhan, Suzhou, Chengdu, Chongqing, Xi’an, Tianjin, Zhengzhou, Changsha, and Hefei rank among the top 15.
Regional development shows a clear gradient
Eastern Region leads across Innovation (66.3), Finance (64.6), and Development (69.8), with an outstanding overall performance.
Central Region shows strong momentum, closely following the East in Innovation (64.8).
Western Region exhibits differentiated development. Cities represented by the Chengdu–Chongqing Economic Circle stands out; their scores in Finance (62.7) and Development (69.7) surpass those of the Central Region.
Northeastern Region: While facing transformation pressures and scoring lower than other regions across the three dimensions, the region’s efforts to stimulate new growth by optimizing its innovation and finance ecosystem are attracting broad expectations at home and abroad.
The Report also reveals a feature that distinguishes China markedly from international patterns:
Across China’s cities, the three dimensions of “Innovation–Finance–Development” show extremely strong positive correlations, with coefficients all above 0.8 and even over 0.9—especially between Finance and Innovation. This indicates that innovation, finance, and development are tightly linked and mutually reinforcing in China, forming a more synergistic development model compared with the global landscape.
Expert Dialogues on “Innovation Finance”
During the themed discussion session at the launch roundtable, Mr. Calvin Chenggang Fu and Dr. Rui Ma first presented the Index’s research methodology and core findings. Experts and scholars then engaged in in-depth exchanges on the value of the Report, improvement suggestions, and application prospects, speaking highly of the research and offering many constructive recommendations.
When explaining the original intent of the research, Mr. Calvin Fu noted: “Innovation finance, in essence, is about strategically optimizing and allocating financial capital around technological innovation; designing financial instruments and mechanisms to foster and accelerate the innovation development and industrialization of new ideas, new technologies, and new models. As future urban economies integrate into global competition and cooperation, we should continue to explore differentiated and distinctive development paths for innovation finance and the innovation economy, and cultivate a more resilient innovation finance ecosystem.”
Mr. Weidong Chen, President of the Academy of Bank of China and Secretary-General of the China International Finance Society, shared his views: “The Global Innovation Finance Index has the potential to become an important tool connecting the building of urban innovation capabilities and soft power. If we continue to advance research along this framework, it may gradually develop into a brand and provide valuable guidance for some key Chinese cities to improve their innovation environment.”
From the perspective of assessment, Professor Geng Xiao, Professor of Practice and Associate Dean (International Cooperation) at the School of Public Policy of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, and Chairman of the Hong Kong Institution for International Finance (HKIIF), noted: “Urban clusters reflect the overall innovation capacity of a country—especially of a region. When measuring innovation finance, we should shift from a single-city perspective to an urban-cluster and industry-synergy perspective. This high-quality Global Innovation Finance Index provides a valuable attempt in this direction.”
Professor Min Song, Dean of the Institute of Central China Development at Wuhan University and President of the Hong Kong Institution for International Finance (HKIIF), emphasized the value of the Index structure: “The value of a composite index lies in revealing the synergy among innovation, finance, and industry. In the future, this index could focus on ‘industry,’ offering more actionable insights to local government. The Global Innovation Finance Index is of great value, and we look forward to its future work.”
Professor Zhigang Qiu, Vice Dean of the Shenzhen Finance Institute, Renmin University of China, remarked: “Conducting an international index study is very challenging. The key is not methodological complexity, but whether it can answer the core question: ‘What is being measured?’ The Global Innovation Finance Index represents a high-quality attempt, and its efforts and results deserve strong recognition. Renmin University of China’s Shenzhen Institute recently completed a study on China Technology Finance Index, and there is considerable scope for future cooperation.”
Professor Mengzi Fu, Vice President of the China International Economic Relations Association (CIERA) and former Vice President of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), affirmed the pioneering nature of the research: “China’s independent construction of an innovation finance index is a valuable attempt. The key is to continuously improve professionalism, objectivity, and acceptability. Building such an index is indeed challenging at the outset, but it is worth continuous updating and publication, to steadily enhance its international recognition.”
Milestone Significance and Future Outlook of the Report
Mr. Calvin Chenggang Fu and Dr. Rui Ma stated:
The Global Innovation Finance Index (GIFI) is not simply about calculating a ranking; rankings do not always reflect dynamic and precise changes.
We aim to provide a scientific “development coordinates” and “action roadmap,” and to help fill the gap in research and evaluation of city-level innovation finance development. This is our effort to benchmark international experience, tap local resources, and promote finance in serving the innovation economy.
We hope it will help cities and regions at different stages of development identify their positioning in developing innovation finance, thereby encouraging advanced performers, guiding latecomers, and improving overall innovation investment and financing capabilities.
We also expect that, through city-level analysis, it can uncover the potential for regional synergistic development, help build regional development strategies based on complementary strengths, and deepen mechanisms for regional coordination.
As the interim research findings presented to both global and domestic audiences, the Index and the Report have substantial room for iteration and improvement. By continuously refining the evaluation system and expanding data collection channels, this indicator system will become more robust over time.
We look forward to working with colleagues from academia, industry, and the policy community worldwide. Starting from this regional- and city-level research on innovation finance and the innovation economy, we aim to contribute Chinese insights to writing a new chapter of Chinese modernization.
The first edition of the Index and the Report is based on data from 2023–2025. The compilation and launch were intellectually supported by the Federation of International Financial Centres and International Innovation Centres (IFC•IIC Federation), Chengdu Finance Week (CDFW), and the Cross-border Investment & Financing Digital Platform (CIDP). Detailed case studies of more than 20 leading innovation finance cities covered in the Report will also be released globally in bilingual editions soon.
Descriptions on the Research Framework and Indicator
To accommodate objective differences in statistical standards and data availability across countries, the Index establishes two indicator systems—international and domestic—within a unified research framework. Under the innovation dimension, a comprehensive evaluation framework has been constructed, encompassing five core factors: innovation input, innovation institutions, innovation entities, patent output, and innovation output. Specific indicators include R&D expenditure of World’s Top 2,500 R&D-Performing Companies, the International Intellectual Property Index, the number of unicorn companies, the volume of PCT applications, and technology contract transaction value, among others.
Under the finance dimension, four core factors are included: financial institutions, financial talent, financial services, and financial markets. Specific indicators encompass the number of the World’s Largest 1,000 Banks, the number of CFA members, insurance depth, and value added of the financial sector, among others.
Under the development dimension, six core factors are included: infrastructure, legal system, education and culture, economic openness, economic development, and ecological environment. Specific indicators comprise mobile network download speed, number of law firms, number of museums, number of destination countries with direct flight connections, GDP per capita, and the Air Quality Index (AQI), among others.
