The Burrow
Sep 18, 2025
In 2025, the cost of working from home has become a key factor in shaping how people approach their setup. As hybrid working models continue to dominate, households face rising energy bills, varying broadband reliability and new pressures on wellbeing and comfort.
The ability to work from home affordably now depends not only on digital infrastructure, but also on energy efficiency and climate conditions. The energy comparison experts at Compare the Market Australia wanted to take a look at where remote working is most and least cost-effective, highlighting the growing divide between countries where home working is a practical option and those where it adds significant financial strain.
Our Worldwide Work from Home (“WFH”) Index is based on a composite score that measures the affordability and feasibility of remote working across different countries. To calculate this, we analysed a range of factors, including:
By combining these measures, each country receives a Global WFH Index score. This is a clear indicator of where remote working is most affordable and where it presents the greatest challenges.
Not all countries face the same expenses when it comes to remote working. Here are the places where people get the best value when they work from home:
The Netherlands claims the top spot in the Worldwide Work from Home Index, thanks to a combination of favourable conditions that make remote working both practical and affordable. Dutch workers benefit from the lowest average energy usage (AU$2.25 per week) required to work from home, which helps to keep household bills down. This is supported by relatively short working weeks (26.77 hours) and a high life evaluation score (69% thriving), showing that the benefits of an affordable WFH lifestyle are complemented by strong overall wellbeing.
In second place is Sweden, where a healthy approach to work-life balance contributes to its position. The country records low average weekly working hours (29.28) and a comparably low cost of energy usage per week when working from home (AU$2.59). This combination means Swedish households face less financial pressure from long hours or high utility bills, making the cost of working from home more manageable. Sweden’s strong digital infrastructure also supports reliable remote working, further boosting its ranking.
With a weekly WFH energy cost of AU$2.52 per week, and an impressive mean internet speed of 210.51 Mbps, there’s no wonder that Denmark is in the top three. If you’re remote working in Denmark, you’ll clock on for an average of 28.75 hours a week. When these factors are combined, Danish remote workers enjoy an excellent life evaluation score, with 77% of people thriving.
Next in the rankings are Finland (Global WFH Index score of 64.23 out of 100), Norway (63.77), France (56.28), Iceland (53.42), Spain (52.98) and Canada (51.83).
Australia makes it into the top ten but there’s a mixed picture when it comes to the cost of working from home. On one hand, it boasts the largest average house sizes (214 square metres) of all 26 countries analysed, giving remote workers the space to create a dedicated home office. Weekly electricity prices (AU$2.95) sit in the mid-range compared to other nations, but the country benefits from a generally warm climate, which helps to reduce heating costs during daytime working hours.
On the other hand, monthly internet costs (AU$80.57) remain higher than in much of Europe, even though speeds are improving year-on-year. This makes connectivity a more expensive part of the remote working setup for many Australians.
Despite these factors, the proportion of people who work from home has remained steady, with hybrid working patterns firmly embedded across industries since the pandemic. This suggests that while Australia faces certain cost challenges, the lifestyle advantages and cultural acceptance of remote working continue to support its popularity.
Energy consumption is one of the biggest contributors to the overall cost of working from home, and in some countries, it adds a significant burden for households. Analysing the total weekly energy usage of remote workers highlights where keeping lights, heating and devices running during the working day is most expensive.
Mexico tops the list, with remote workers facing an average of AU$4.69 in weekly energy usage costs. Greece follows with AU$3.92, followed by Poland with AU$3.73 per week. The USA ranks fourth at AU$3.62, Switzerland (AU$3.43) showing that even in countries with advanced infrastructure, energy use can be a costly factor when people work from home.
Working from home brings flexibility, but it can also drive up household bills. From heating and cooling to internet costs, small changes can make a big difference. These practical tips will help you to lower the cost of working from home while keeping your remote working setup efficient and comfortable.
Climate control is one of the biggest contributors to the cost of working from home. To cut expenses, choose a smaller room to work in, close doors to keep the space contained, and avoid heating or cooling unused areas of the house. Simple additions like draught excluders or thermal curtains can make a big difference, while fans or efficient space heaters can be used strategically to stay comfortable without driving up energy bills.
Good lighting is essential for productivity, but it doesn’t have to be costly. Replacing traditional bulbs with LEDs can reduce lighting costs by up to 80%. LEDs also last far longer, making them a smart investment for remote working setups where lights are often on throughout the day.
Even when turned off, many devices still consume power, a hidden drain known as phantom load. Chargers, printers, monitors and even your coffee machine can all quietly add to your bill. By unplugging electronics or using a smart power system, you can eliminate unnecessary energy waste and reduce the cost of working from home over time.
Appliances like dishwashers and washing machines consume a lot of electricity. If your energy tariff offers cheaper off-peak rates, try running these during the night or early morning. This small shift in routine can significantly reduce your weekly energy costs, helping you to balance household chores with the realities of remote working.
Fast and reliable internet is vital for anyone who works from home, but many households overpay for outdated packages. Review your broadband plan regularly to see if faster or more affordable options are available in your area. Switching provider or negotiating with your current one can cut costs while improving connectivity, ensuring your remote working setup is both efficient and affordable.
Compare the Market’s Head of Energy, Meredith O’Brien notes how working from home can impact your energy bills.
“Many remote workers underestimate how much heating, cooling and appliances add to their monthly bills,” Ms O’Brien said.
“Small adjustments can make a big difference in WFH energy costs without compromising comfort.
“On top of this, make sure to regularly compare energy providers so that you benefit from a great deal that suits your home and your lifestyle.”
This index ranks 26 countries based on how suitable they are for working from home in 2025. A broad set of data points were analysed to assess the affordability, infrastructure, comfort, and wellbeing of remote workers across each nation. Each factor was normalised on a scale from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better performance (unless otherwise stated). A final score out of 100 was calculated by averaging the normalised indexed values. Countries were then ranked from highest to lowest based on their total scores.
The countries included in the study are:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.
The following factors were used:
Average Electricity Price (AU/kWh)
The most recent electricity prices from 2023-2025 were collected for each country. All prices were converted into AUD using August 2025 exchange rates from Xe.com (US$1 = AU$1.5433). Found via GlobalPetrolPrices.
Lower prices scored higher.
Estimated Weekly Remote Work Energy Cost (AUD)
Energy usage estimates were created based on typical remote work activities (laptop usage for working hours, lighting a single 100w bulb for working hours, kettle use twice a day for 1 litre of water, and microwaving lunch for 5 minutes in a 1000w microwave) and multiplied by each country’s electricity price and average working hours to determine the average weekly cost of working from home. Found via Heatable.
Lower costs scored higher.
Internet Speed and Cost
Average broadband speeds (Mbps) and monthly internet costs were collected for each country.
Found via BestBroadbandDeals, WorldPopulationReview.
Higher speed scored higher.
Lower cost scored higher.
Average Weekly Working Hours
The average number of hours worked per week was collected for all workers (not specific to WFH workers).
Found via Statistics Canada.
Lower hours = higher work-life balance score.
Average House Size
The average home size was collected in floor space (m²).
Found via NLM, Quartz, Savills, Shrink That Footprint, Smart Property Investment, Government of Canada, El Economista, GOV UK, National Library of Medicine.
Larger homes scored higher as they are assumed to better support remote work setups.
Life Evaluation Score (Gallup)
The percentage of people who classify themselves as “thriving” in Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace report was used to indicate overall job satisfaction and wellbeing.
Found via Gallup.
Higher percentages scored higher.
Remote Work Prevalence (2024/2025)
The percentage of workers regularly working from home was gathered for each country. Where possible, this was compared to 2020/2021 figures to assess how remote work trends have evolved. Found via iz, RNZ, ABS, WCBC, US Census, Mexico Business, Eurostat.
Higher prevalence scored higher.
Once all data points were collected, each factor was normalised and indexed. These scores were then combined to produce a final index score out of 100 for each country.
All data is correct as of 08/08/25.