Siem Reap vs. Amasya: Detailed 2026 Cost of Living & Quality Comparison

Siem Reap, located in Cambodia, has a population of approximately 147,866 people, while Amasya, situated in Turkey, is home to around 114,921 residents. The data reveals significant differences in the quality of life indices between the two cities. Siem Reap boasts a higher Quality of Life Index of 83.25 compared to Amasya's index of 77.94. However, Amasya demonstrates a higher GDP per capita ($34,600) than Siem Reap ($6,700). Siem Reap's cost of living is substantially lower than Amasya's, with a Cost of Living Index of 29.91 versus 125.3, respectively. This indicates that basic expenses, including food, transportation, and utilities, are significantly cheaper in Siem Reap. Furthermore, Siem Reap offers a lower average monthly net salary ($568.57) compared to Amasya's $568.57, but the overall cost differential favors Siem Reap for most essential goods and services.

The economic landscape differs markedly between the two locations. Siem Reap exhibits a significantly lower cost of living, impacting nearly all daily expenditure categories except for property. Food costs are considerably lower in Siem Reap, with even basic market items being much cheaper than their Turkish counterparts. Transportation expenses, including public transport and fuel, are also substantially reduced. Utilities and basic services are more affordable in Siem Reap. However, Siem Reap's economy appears less developed, reflected in its lower GDP per capita ($6,700) compared to Amasya's ($34,600). While the average net salary is similar ($568.57), the lower cost of living in Siem Reap means a higher disposable income relative to basic expenses for an individual earning the average salary. Property prices in Amasya are significantly higher than in Siem Reap, reflecting the city's higher overall cost structure.

When considering quality of life, several factors come into play. Siem Reap demonstrates a higher Quality of Life Index (83.25) than Amasya (77.94), suggesting a potentially more favorable overall environment based on the available metrics. Safety is a concern in Siem Reap, with a Safety Index of 36.11, significantly lower than Amasya's 77.94. Healthcare access and quality also differ, with Siem Reap having a lower Health Care Index (36.11) compared to Amasya's (77.94), indicating potentially less developed or accessible healthcare services. Commuting seems slightly less burdensome in Siem Reap with a lower Traffic Commute Time Index (15.0) than Amasya's (15.0), though the difference is negligible here. Environmental factors show Siem Reap has a lower Pollution Index (83.62) than Amasya (83.62), suggesting potentially cleaner air in Amasya, but the data is identical for this specific comparison point.

For potential investors or long-term residents, the investment climate and lifestyle implications are crucial. Amasya offers a higher GDP growth rate (5.11%) compared to Siem Reap's implied lower growth rate based on its GDP per capita ($6,700). The significantly higher property prices in Amasya ($34,600 GDP per capita) versus Siem Reap ($6,700) suggest a more expensive real estate market, though Amasya has a lower average net salary ($568.57). Lifestyle expenses, particularly for education and entertainment, are vastly different. Amasya's childcare and primary school costs are substantially higher, and while basic cinema tickets are slightly more expensive, the overall premium lifestyle associated with Amasya is clear. Siem Reap presents a much more affordable lifestyle option, albeit with potential trade-offs in healthcare quality, safety, and environmental conditions.

In conclusion, Siem Reap and Amasya present fundamentally different profiles for potential residents or investors. Siem Reap offers a significantly lower cost of living, making it an attractive option for those seeking affordability, particularly for basic necessities. However, this comes with potential drawbacks in terms of safety, healthcare quality, and environmental factors. Amasya, while considerably more expensive across most metrics, including property, offers a higher GDP per capita, potentially better healthcare, and a higher safety index. The choice between the two cities depends heavily on individual priorities: budget constraints and tolerance for certain risks versus a higher income level, better public services, and a potentially safer environment, even at a significantly higher cost.