Maldives visitor survey shows strong visitor loyalty; spending chapter remains incomplete

Nearly four in five visitors surveyed by the Maldives government said the country was their first-choice destination. More than nine in ten gave their holiday a satisfaction score of eight or higher, and a similar proportion said they were highly likely to recommend it to others.
These findings, published in the 151-page Maldives Visitor Survey 2025, support the report's central conclusion: the Maldives' tourism product retains a strong hold on the people who visit it. The Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation released the report on 15 July, with CDE Consulting credited for analysis, interpretation and report preparation.
The report goes further, stating that the Maldives does not face a demand, satisfaction or reputation challenge. A Vindhu review of the report finds the evidence strongest on visitor sentiment and weakest on the economic conclusions that follow from describing the Maldives as a premium, high-value destination. The report's own chapter on visitor spending does not publish the spending figures its questionnaire was designed to collect.

Visitor sentiment scores highly

The survey describes a destination chosen deliberately rather than as a fallback. Seventy-eight per cent of respondents said the Maldives was their first choice; 19 per cent placed it among their top few choices. Sixty-nine per cent said the Maldives was the only country on their trip — though the report's own summary infographic gives this figure as 68 per cent.

The visitor base skewed heavily toward newcomers: 73 per cent were on their first visit. The most commonly cited reasons for choosing the Maldives were beaches, underwater scenery and marine wildlife, peacefulness, weather and the small-island setting.

Satisfaction scores were high throughout the sample. Fifty-seven per cent gave their holiday the maximum score of 10 out of 10, and 93 per cent scored it between eight and 10. Seventy per cent gave the maximum score when asked how likely they were to recommend the Maldives, and 93 per cent rated that likelihood between eight and 10. Eighty-four per cent rated their intention to return between eight and 10. Fifty-seven per cent described their experience as better than expected — 42 per cent said it was much better and a further 15 per cent said it was slightly better than they had anticipated.

These are meaningful measures of sentiment, though they are not benchmarked against external comparators. The report repeatedly describes the scores as "world-class," "world-leading" or placing the Maldives in an "elite tier," without publishing a comparison against competitor destinations or earlier Maldives surveys conducted on a similar basis. A stated intention to return is also a different measure from an observed repeat visit.

A spending chapter without spending totals

The most significant gap in the report sits in the chapter titled "Visitor Spend." According to the questionnaire reproduced in the annex, independent travellers were asked how much they spent on accommodation, food and beverages, domestic transport, diving, excursions, shopping, spa treatments and other categories, as well as their main payment method.

The published chapter does not present either result. The table of contents lists five subsections under "Visitor Spend": total expenditure on holiday (I1), expenditure by category (I2), prices versus expectation (I3), payment method (I4) and travel insurance (I5). Only I3 and I5 appear in the finished report. I1, I2 and I4 — the sections that would have covered total spending, category-level spending and how visitors paid — do not appear. Figure numbering in the chapter also skips from 127, in the preceding section, to 132 for price perceptions and then to 135 for insurance. The report does not explain the gap.

What the report does publish, in the "prices versus expectation" section, is a measure of perceived value rather than actual spending: 53 to 58 per cent of respondents judged accommodation, food, water and soft drinks to be value for money, while souvenirs, spa treatments, excursions, diving and alcohol drew the highest "expensive" ratings. This indicates how visitors felt about prices, but not how much they spent, whether payment occurred before arrival, how spending differed between resorts and inhabited islands, or how much of it remained in the domestic economy.

Without the expenditure tables, the report does not establish average spending per visitor or per night, allow comparison between markets, measure spending outside resorts, or indicate whether all-inclusive and package travel limits wider economic spillovers. These are relevant questions for a tourism-dependent economy assessing the value, rather than only the volume, of its visitor numbers.

Arrivals are growing; the accommodation mix is shifting

Official tourism statistics show that the Maldives received 2,246,516 tourists in 2025. Total bednights rose from 13.34 million in 2024 to 13.77 million in 2025, while average length of stay fell from 7.4 to 7.0 days — meaning the country hosted more visitors without a matching rise in nights spent.

Resort bednights were largely unchanged, at close to 10.99 million. Guesthouse bednights rose by around 12 per cent, to 2.23 million, though they remain well below resort volume. This is consistent with the survey's description of resorts as the backbone of the tourism product, while showing that inhabited-island tourism is growing at a faster rate.
The Maldives Monetary Authority's travel-receipts estimate rose 16.4 per cent, from $4.79 billion to $5.57 billion. This is a substantial nominal increase, though the series is not a direct total drawn from the visitor survey — the MMA says it is calculated using tourism GST, Green Tax, tourism tax, duty-free sales and airport-related fees. Tax changes complicate a straightforward year-on-year reading: Green Tax rates doubled from January 2025 for the main accommodation categories, and tourism GST rose from 16 to 17 per cent in July. Part of the increase in receipts may therefore reflect higher tax rates as well as visitor spending and volume.
The official series indicates strong tourism earnings overall. It does not show which visitor segments generated the increase, or how receipts were distributed between resorts, guesthouses, international intermediaries, local businesses and the state — questions the survey's unpublished expenditure data could have helped answer.

Resorts and guesthouses show different visitor patterns

Seventy per cent of survey respondents stayed only at resorts, and 21 per cent stayed only at a hotel or guesthouse on an inhabited island. Four per cent combined the two, and liveaboards accounted for 2 per cent. The two main segments differed in profile and likely spending behaviour.
Resort visitors were predominantly couples seeking privacy, comfort and dependable service, and were more likely to have booked as part of a package well in advance. Guesthouse visitors were younger and more independent, citing value for money, authenticity and access to different islands among their reasons for choosing that option.
Meal plans reinforce this pattern: 44 per cent of respondents chose all-inclusive and 20 per cent chose full board, meaning close to two-thirds had most meals prepaid before arrival. The report's own executive summary notes that this model can limit spending outside resorts and the wider economic spillovers that follow from it. This is one reason the unpublished category-level spending data would be useful — it could indicate whether guesthouse growth is producing more spending in local restaurants, shops, excursions and transport, even where room revenue is lower.
The published survey supports the existence of two distinct tourism segments. It does not yet provide the revenue, employment, procurement or import data that would show which segment generates more domestic economic value per visitor or per night.

Visitors research and book mainly through digital channels

Word of mouth and social media drive initial awareness of the destination: 34 per cent of respondents first heard about the Maldives from family or friends, and 29 per cent through social media. When organising their trip, 51 per cent used travel websites, 33 per cent used social media and 31 per cent used internet search; respondents could select more than one source.
Three per cent of respondents cited the official Maldives website or Instagram account as a planning source, compared with 5 per cent who cited artificial-intelligence tools. This does not measure conversion or campaign effectiveness, but it does indicate that the official destination channel plays a limited direct role in the research process visitors describe.
Booking remained largely intermediated: about 65 per cent of resort guests reported using an international travel agency or tour operator for accommodation, while 18 per cent booked directly with the resort. The underlying question allowed more than one answer, so this reflects channel usage rather than a market-share calculation.

Most visitors report a smooth journey, though transfer waits vary

Eighty-three per cent of respondents reported no challenge during travel or their stay, 12 per cent reported a challenge and 5 per cent did not answer. Weather and flight or transfer connections were the most commonly cited problems. The report's narrative and its accompanying table give different figures for these two categories — 4 and 3 per cent in the text, against 5 and 4 per cent in Table 6 — which the Ministry may wish to clarify.
Transfer waiting time is a more visible point of friction. Thirty-three per cent of respondents waited less than 30 minutes at Velana International Airport before their onward transfer, and 30 per cent waited between 30 and 60 minutes. Nineteen per cent waited one to two hours, and 18 per cent waited more than two hours — putting 37 per cent over an hour in total. The report describes this measure as how quickly visitors clear the airport; the underlying questionnaire item (F2a) asks specifically how long visitors waited for transport to their place of stay, which is a related but distinct measure.
Core airport processes scored well. Arriving visitors rated staff helpfulness, immigration efficiency, signage and baggage handling positively; departing visitors gave high marks to check-in, passport control and security. Food and beverage value, shopping, local products, family facilities and accessible restrooms scored lower, or drew a high proportion of "not applicable" responses.

What the methodology can and cannot support

The survey completed 3,047 core questionnaires, above its target of 1,823. Each supplementary module exceeded its target of 400 responses. This is a substantial descriptive dataset, though sample size alone does not establish national representativeness.
Fieldwork took place over 15 days, from 1 to 15 December 2025, at Terminals 1 and 2 of Velana International Airport. The sample therefore reflects a peak-season fortnight and does not include visitors departing through other airports. The methodology annex does not report the number of people approached, the refusal rate, the sampling interval, the weighting method, party-level controls, or subgroup sample sizes for most charts.
The Ministry's own website lists the document as the "Maldives Visitor Survey Report October 2025," though the report's methodology states that fieldwork occurred in December. The reason for this is not given.
A Vindhu comparison with full-month December arrival data suggests the achieved sample did not closely mirror that month's nationality mix: British visitors made up 12 per cent of respondents against roughly 9.3 per cent of December arrivals; Russians were 9 per cent of respondents against roughly 11.1 per cent of arrivals; Italians were 7 per cent of respondents against roughly 9.5 per cent of arrivals. This comparison is indicative rather than definitive, since the survey covered only the first half of the month; data for the exact fieldwork dates and departure flights would allow a more precise test.
A number of smaller inconsistencies within the report would also benefit from clarification. The methodology states the questionnaire was available in eight languages but lists nine. Page 80 describes 4,838 multiple-response selections as "respondents," and page 86 describes 4,263 as "all respondents" — both figures exceed the 3,047 core questionnaires and appear to reflect selection counts rather than respondent counts. Page 95 states that 9 per cent of guesthouse visitors used speedboats, while the two speedboat-related categories in the accompanying chart sum to 69 per cent. Page 100 initially attributes a set of figures to "bed and breakfast" as the leading meal-plan choice in several European markets; the same figures are attributed to "all-inclusive" on the following page.
Individually, these read as likely production errors rather than flaws in the underlying data collection. Collectively, they reduce confidence in the figures they touch until clarified.

What the survey does not yet answer

The survey makes a reasonably strong case that visitors value the Maldives' natural environment, privacy and service model, and that most leave highly satisfied. It also points to practical areas for improvement: transfer coordination, official digital information, airport amenities, structured cultural experiences and sustainability communication.

Its findings on economic value are less complete. To establish whether the Maldives is attracting higher-value tourism, and whether that value reaches inhabited islands and local businesses, the Ministry would need to publish the anonymised expenditure tables, set out its sampling and weighting approach, and resolve the internal inconsistencies noted above.

Until then, the survey is best read as a measure of visitor sentiment gathered over 15 peak-season days at one airport, rather than a complete account of the economic value of Maldivian tourism.