Student Scores

PISA 2025 assesses what 15-year-old students know and can do in science, reading and mathematics. It also includes an innovative assessment of computational problem solving, which examines how students use computational tools and practices to solve problems, test solutions and build digital artefacts. Explore how average performance and the distribution of achievement vary across countries and economies.

Please note: Estimates for the following countries/economies should be interpreted with caution, as one or more PISA sampling standards were not met: Albania, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and the United States.

Mean scores summarise the overall performance of 15-year-old students in each country or economy. In PISA 2025, students scored 482 points in science, 463 points in mathematics and 461 points in reading, on average across OECD countries. Eighteen systems performed above the OECD average in all three core domains. In computational problem solving, the OECD average was 500 points. Finally, an environmental science scale was developed using a selection of items from the PISA 2025 science assessment. Among OECD countries, the average score in environmental science was 480 points.

However, mean scores provide only part of the picture. Large distances between students near the lower and upper ends of the distribution indicate wider performance gaps within countries and economies. In science, the difference between the extremes was 258 score points on average across OECD countries

PISA proficiency levels translate scores into descriptions of what students can do. In science, baseline proficiency Level 2 marks the point at which students begin to use scientific knowledge in ways that demonstrate scientific literacy. Students below Level 2 are classified as low performers, while those reaching Levels 5 or 6 are classified as top performers. Around three-quarters of students across OECD countries demonstrated at least baseline proficiency in science, while relatively few (7%), reached the two highest proficiency levels.

In PISA 2025, average science performance was almost identical for boys and girls across OECD countries, with girls scoring one point higher. Differences were clearer in the other domains assessed, showing that gender gaps can differ not only in size, but also in direction across subjects.

Gender differences may be more pronounced at the lower and upper ends of the performance distribution than in average scores. They are also visible in the shares of low and top performers. In science, 27% of boys and 24% of girls performed below Level 2, while 8% of boys and 6% of girls reached Levels 5 or 6. In most systems, however, gender differences in the share of top performers in science were small or not statistically significant. Different patterns are observed in other assessed domains.

PISA measures socio-economic status using the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS). In PISA 2025, socio-economically advantaged students consistently outperformed disadvantaged students. However, the size of these performance gaps varied markedly across systems.

Socio-economic disadvantage is strongly associated with the risk of not reaching baseline proficiency, with a larger share of disadvantaged than advantaged students performing below Level 2. Differences also appear at the upper end proficiency: advantaged students are more strongly represented among top performers. Nevertheless, every participating education system has some academically resilient students. These are socio-economically disadvantaged students who perform in the top quarter of science achievement in their own country or economy. The share of academically resilient students varies significantly across countries and economies.