Metropolitan: 36 councils compared
Ranked against other metropolitan boroughs only, which removes some of the structural differences between London and the metropolitan areas.
| Rank | Council | Band | Service quality | Value for money | Financial health |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wakefield | Top quarter | 3 | 12 | 9 |
| 2 | Salford | Top quarter | 9 | 1 | 10 |
| 3 | Barnsley | Top quarter | 5 | 13 | 12 |
| 4 | Rotherham | Top quarter | 1 | 24 | 19 |
| 5 | Sunderland | Top quarter | 4 | 15 | 20 |
| 6 | Wigan | Top quarter | 15 | 3 | 8 |
| 7 | Coventry | Top quarter | 14 | 11 | 5 |
| 8 | Calderdale | Top quarter | 2 | 30 | 23 |
| 9 | Bolton | Top quarter | 17 | 8 | 2 |
| 10 | Doncaster | Upper middle | 11 | 7 | 18 |
| 11 | St. Helens | Upper middle | 6 | 33 | 6 |
| 12 | Walsall | Upper middle | 8 | 26 | 17 |
| 13 | Oldham | Upper middle | 26 | 2 | 3 |
| 14 | Gateshead | Upper middle | 10 | 27 | 15 |
| 15 | Dudley * | Upper middle | 16 | – | – |
| 16 | Wolverhampton | Upper middle | 23 | 4 | 16 |
| 17 | Bradford | Upper middle | 13 | 5 | 29 |
| 18 | Bury | Upper middle | 22 | 19 | 13 |
| 19 | Sandwell * | Lower middle | 21 | – | – |
| 20 | Manchester | Lower middle | 18 | 22 | 22 |
| 21 | Sefton | Lower middle | 7 | 28 | 34 |
| 22 | North Tyneside | Lower middle | 25 | 16 | 21 |
| 23 | Leeds | Lower middle | 24 | 17 | 25 |
| 24 | South Tyneside | Lower middle | 12 | 29 | 28 |
| 25 | Rochdale | Lower middle | 29 | 10 | 7 |
| 26 | Solihull | Lower middle | 19 | 20 | 32 |
| 27 | Stockport | Lower middle | 20 | 23 | 27 |
| 28 | Newcastle upon Tyne | Bottom quarter | 28 | 31 | 1 |
| 29 | Sheffield | Bottom quarter | 34 | 21 | 4 |
| 30 | Kirklees | Bottom quarter | 32 | 6 | 26 |
| 31 | Trafford | Bottom quarter | 27 | 18 | 31 |
| 32 | Tameside | Bottom quarter | 31 | 25 | 14 |
| 33 | Liverpool | Bottom quarter | 33 | 32 | 11 |
| 34 | Knowsley | Bottom quarter | 30 | 34 | 24 |
| 35 | Birmingham | Bottom quarter | 35 | 9 | 30 |
| 36 | Wirral | Bottom quarter | 36 | 14 | 33 |
Pillar columns show each council's rank out of 36. Overall weights:service quality 60%, value for money 20%, financial health 20%. Rank positions in the middle of the table are sensitive to weighting, so the bands are the more reliable guide.
* Ranked on the data available: some spending and finance returns have not yet been published for this council.
Approximate council-centre positions, coloured by the band for the selected view. Not to scale for boundaries.