Available estimates differ, and classification methods are inconsistent between studies — so this page deliberately does not give one single ranked global table. Instead, here is what real sources actually support, each with its own scope.
Different studies use different classification systems (some separate grey from blue, hazel from amber, or light brown from brown; others don’t), sample different populations, and were conducted at different times. A single worldwide percentage for each category would need a level of methodological consistency that doesn’t currently exist across the available literature — so Colourwise reports scoped, sourced claims instead of inventing one.
Brown is widely reported as the most common broad eye-colour category worldwide, though this is a general summary rather than one precise, universally comparable measurement.
This is a broad-category, worldwide summary statement, not a precise percentage. It does not break down brown into dark brown/brown/light brown, and doesn't specify which populations or studies it synthesises.
Blue eyes are reported with notably higher prevalence in Northern and Eastern Europe than in most other studied world regions, though exact figures vary between sources.
Regional boundaries in the underlying literature are not perfectly consistent, and precise percentages vary between individual studies. Presented here as a directional, well-corroborated pattern rather than one exact figure.
Green is widely reported as among the least common broad eye-colour categories, though classification differences between studies make a precise global ranking unreliable.
Green is one of the least consistently classified categories — some sources merge it with hazel or grey-green. Treat any specific worldwide percentage for green eyes with real caution; this content deliberately avoids stating one.
Reliable estimates for hazel eyes specifically are hard to compare across sources, because studies differ in whether they treat hazel as its own category or merge it with light brown, amber or green.
Hazel is frequently merged with light brown, amber or green depending on the classification system, making cross-study comparison unreliable. No global figure is stated here for this reason.
Amber eyes are widely described as relatively uncommon, but because many studies don't track amber as a separate category from light brown or hazel, a reliable global figure isn't available.
Amber is one of the categories least often tracked separately in population studies, and is sometimes merged with light brown or hazel. No global figure is stated here for this reason.
Grey eyes are widely considered relatively uncommon, but because grey is often counted together with blue in population studies, a reliable separate global figure isn't available.
Because many studies fold grey into 'blue', dedicated grey-eye prevalence data is limited. No global figure is stated here for this reason.
Heterochromia is considered uncommon overall, but exactly how uncommon depends heavily on which patterns (complete, central, sectoral) a given study counts.
Reported prevalence for heterochromia depends heavily on study definition — whether subtle central/sectoral cases are counted alongside complete heterochromia substantially changes the figure. No single percentage is stated here for this reason.
Blue-grey is a widely used everyday description, but it is not a category population studies generally count separately from blue or grey, so no reliable separate prevalence figure exists.
There is no established separate prevalence figure for blue-grey eyes, because almost no study treats it as its own category. Any number presented as one would be an artefact of how a particular study drew its boundaries, not a measurement of a distinct group. No figure is stated here for that reason.
Green-hazel describes a boundary between two categories that studies already define inconsistently, so no separate prevalence figure can be given for it.
Both green and hazel are already defined differently between sources, so an intermediate description between them compounds the inconsistency rather than resolving it. No prevalence figure is stated here.
Grey-green is a common everyday description, but it is not a category population studies count separately from grey or green, so no reliable prevalence figure exists for it.
No separate prevalence figure exists, because no study counts grey-green as its own group. A number presented as one would reflect where a particular study drew its boundary rather than how often the appearance occurs. None is stated here.
See individual eye-colour profiles for category-specific detail, and eye colours for the full section.