Investment · Uzbekistan
Namangan, Tashkent region and Navoi lead the H1 2026 oblast ranking
CAPPA ranks Uzbekistan’s 12 oblasts by foreign investments and loans in fixed assets. A separate table includes all 14 regional units, with Tashkent city in first place.
Official-data ranking · preliminary figures
Top three oblasts · January–June 2026
Foreign investments and loans in fixed assets, ranked by reported value. These three places compare Uzbekistan’s 12 oblasts; Tashkent city and the Republic of Karakalpakstan are separate administrative units.
Namangan region
30.115trillion UZS30,114.6 billion UZS · source precisionTashkent region
23.335trillion UZS23,335.2 billion UZS · source precisionNavoi region
21.879trillion UZS21,879.1 billion UZS · source precisionIncluding all 14 regional units: Tashkent city leads with 39,461.5 billion UZS, followed by Namangan and Tashkent region. Tashkent city and Tashkent region are not combined.
The 14 published regional rows sum to 249,971.0 billion UZS. The national row is 259,047.7 billion UZS, leaving an unexplained difference of 9,076.7 billion UZS. CAPPA preserves the source values and does not allocate this difference. The rankings below describe the published regional rows.
All 14 regional units
| Overall place | Regional unit | Billion UZS | Oblast place |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tashkent city | 39,461.5 | — |
| 2 | Namangan region | 30,114.6 | 1 |
| 3 | Tashkent region | 23,335.2 | 2 |
| 4 | Navoi region | 21,879.1 | 3 |
| 5 | Fergana region | 20,993.3 | 4 |
| 6 | Samarkand region | 19,754.2 | 5 |
| 7 | Bukhara region | 17,931.8 | 6 |
| 8 | Surkhandarya region | 15,841.4 | 7 |
| 9 | Andijan region | 14,745.9 | 8 |
| 10 | Kashkadarya region | 11,477.9 | 9 |
| 11 | Syrdarya region | 9,435.3 | 10 |
| 12 | Khorezm region | 8,643.0 | 11 |
| 13 | Republic of Karakalpakstan | 8,421.8 | — |
| 14 | Jizzakh region | 7,936.0 | 12 |
How this ranking was constructed
CAPPA used the 2026-Q2 column of SIAT indicator 1.04.01.0026, the latest period available in this dataset when checked on 24 September. It represents January–June, not April–June alone. The national value of 259,047.7 billion UZS matches the two foreign-financing categories in the Statistics Committee’s 4 August first-half release.
The measure covers foreign investments and loans used for fixed assets. It is broader than foreign direct investment alone and does not measure signed memoranda, proposed projects, all-source investment or investment attractiveness. The source marks the figures as preliminary. Values are ranked in current UZS without a dollar conversion.
CAPPA analysis: why it matters
For a location shortlist, the reported volume is a useful starting point for discussion with regional counterparts. It does not identify which sites have spare power, which projects are open to a new investor, or whether a particular business can earn an acceptable return. A large project can also move a region up the table without improving every sector’s prospects. CAPPA would pair the volume comparison with a defined sector, available sites, infrastructure evidence and the next commercial decision. The unresolved difference between the regional sum and the national row is disclosed above so readers can assess the data on its actual terms.
Questions before the next commitment
- Which named project, sponsor and site are available for a new partner, and what rights are documented?
- What grid, water, logistics and workforce capacity is available at that site, with what connection cost and delivery date?
- Which market, buyer and funding requirement can be evidenced for the proposed project, beyond the region’s aggregate investment volume?
A practical next step
Use the ranking to narrow an initial discussion, then send CAPPA a non-confidential sector, location and project-stage brief. Regional coordination and investor sourcing can be scoped around a concrete opportunity; this editorial ranking is not an official award or an endorsement of individual projects.
Explore regional investment opportunities →