Average Vertical Jump by Age, Sex & Sport

The content on this page is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before making changes to your health or fitness regimen.

A 20-inch vertical can look impressive in a pickup game and ordinary in a highlight reel. The confusing part is that those jumps may not even be measuring the same thing.

Coaching reference Topend Sports rates an average adult standing vertical jump at 16–20 inches for men and 12–16 inches for women. Those broad ranges are not age-specific population averages. Canadian reference data put median arm-swing force-plate jumps at ages 20–24 at 19.4 inches for males and 12.5 inches for females (Hoffmann et al., 2019). The average vertical jump depends on who is jumping and how the test works.

Your most useful comparison starts with matching the test, not chasing the biggest number. Once that distinction is clear, age-based benchmarks become much more meaningful.

Before the benchmarks: Which vertical jump counts?

“Standing vertical” means no approach, but it does not automatically mean no arm swing. Jump type, arm use, and the method used to calculate height all affect interpretation (Xu et al., 2023). Research also distinguishes countermovement jumps with and without arm swing, squat jumps, and drop jumps (Markovic, 2007). That foundational meta-analysis is cited here for its longstanding test categories, not as a source of current population averages.

The Canadian reference study used a Leonardo Mechanograph force plate and an arm swing. Its authors caution that these norms should be compared only with data from the same force plate, and that protocol differences should be noted—so these are not hands-on-hips CMJ standards (Hoffmann et al., 2019).

Bottom line: Your 20-inch running jump, wall-touch jump, and force-plate CMJ are not equivalent scores.

Average vertical jump by age and sex

Where do you fit among people your age? The table uses medians, or 50th percentiles, from the Canadian Health Measures Survey, collected in 2016–2017. Think of the median as the middle of the reference group: half falls below it and half above. It is not the arithmetic mean or a recruiting standard.

Median vertical jump: Ages 12–69

All centimeter values in this table and the percentile table below come from the study's published jumping-height table; inches are converted using 2.54 cm per inch and rounded to one decimal.

Why do other websites give different averages?

The broad adult ranges in the introduction are coaching-reference values, not an age-specific national survey. Different countries, training backgrounds, and test setups can produce different numbers. Hoffmann et al. (2019) also acknowledge screening and participation effects that may favor healthier participants.

Does vertical jump decline with age?

Hoffmann et al. (2019) report reference curves that generally show lower adult jump heights at older ages. They compare different people at different ages, rather than following each person's decline, so this is a population pattern—not your personal trajectory.

If you're 45 and returning to recreational basketball, the 45–49 benchmark offers more relevant context than a college highlight reel. Your own repeatable results can reveal progress that an age average misses.

What is a good vertical jump? A percentile quick check

“Good” needs a reference group. At the 50th percentile, your jump is typical for that age-and-sex group; at the 95th, it exceeds roughly 95% of that reference distribution. That's a high population ranking—not a scholarship cutoff.

These arm-swing force-plate reference values come from the same Canadian survey table linked above.

Worked example: A 22-year-old male with a matching-protocol jump of 22 inches is above the median but below the 95th percentile. That's a useful bracket, not an exact percentile. A wall-touch or running result needs its own matching reference.

Why no universal percentile calculator? An exact-looking percentile would be misleading if it combined running jumps, hands-on-hips CMJs, and arm-swing force-plate jumps. These tables keep the comparison transparent.

Athletic and sport-specific vertical jump benchmarks

Trained-athlete medians

A commercial dataset from 658 athletes reports median best CMJ heights of 20.6 inches for males and 14.8 inches for females. These results came from flight-time measurement on Plyomat switch mats—not force plates. They describe a selected athletic sample and each athlete's best recorded jump, rather than a typical session average (Plyomat, 2026).

“Best recorded jump” matters: your personal best and the average of today's attempts answer different questions.

Basketball, volleyball, and football benchmarks

For a broad coaching comparison, Topend Sports lists the following sport ranges. These are secondary coaching estimates, not verified league-wide averages or recruiting percentiles; the page does not establish a standardized sampling protocol for each sport.

The numbers provide rough context, but the test still matters. Basketball distinguishes standing from maximum vertical, volleyball distinguishes jump height from approach touch height, and football comparisons depend on position and combine-style versus laboratory testing.

The official combine dashboard from the NBA explicitly separates standing and maximum vertical leap. Its historical review lists Keon Johnson's 48-inch maximum vertical in 2021—a combine result, not an average NBA standing jump (NBA, 2026).

Even college level isn't a universal performance label. In one force-platform study, Division I female athletes jumped higher than NAIA female athletes, while male jump height did not differ significantly by competition level (Stahl et al., 2020).

A population percentile is not a recruiting percentile. Your ranking nationally does not establish a team's position-specific expectations—and vertical jump alone does not capture your full sporting ability.

How vertical jump is measured—and where error enters

According to Topend Sports, the basic jump-and-reach calculation subtracts standing reach from jump reach:

Vertical jump = highest jump touch − standing reach

For example, a standing reach of 90 inches and a jump touch of 110 inches produce a 20-inch score. That reach difference isn't measured in the same way as force-platform jump height, as the review discussed below explains.

Different tools have different vulnerabilities:

• Wall marks and vane devices: Standing-reach technique and touch timing affect the score.
• Flight-time systems: Height is inferred from time airborne; takeoff and landing posture can affect interpretation.
• Force plates: Force-time data can provide more detail than height alone, but the calculation method and test protocol still need specification.

A systematic review distinguishes height measured from initial standing position to the jump's apex from height measured from takeoff to apex. Flight-time, impulse-momentum, and jump-and-reach calculations can yield different values. Even “force-plate jump” needs a calculation method attached to it (Xu et al., 2023).

What belongs in a repeatable testing record?

A useful record includes:

• Jump type and arm position.
• Equipment and calculation method.
• Shoes, surface, and warm-up.
• Number of attempts and rest intervals.
• Best jump versus average jump.

With those details, your training log becomes easier to interpret. A small day-to-day change isn't automatically fatigue or improvement; normal variability under the same setup provides the context.

What influences jump height—and what can improve it?

Strength, speed, and jump-specific practice

Jumping isn't just about how much force you can produce; it's also an explosive movement. Training research examines muscle and tendon adaptations alongside changes in jump performance.

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 studies found that plyometric training improved jumping performance and lower-body strength in healthy adults. That supports jump training as a useful training category, without guaranteeing a particular number of inches for you (Ramírez-delaCruz et al., 2022).

BodySpec's plyometrics guide explains jump-training principles and exercise categories; the leg-strength guide explains the strength side. Together, they show why jumping involves both producing force and practicing an explosive movement. Maximal jumping is not appropriate for everyone, particularly with active pain, injury, or balance limitations.

Body composition: Context, not a shortcut

Jumping requires accelerating body mass, which makes force production relative to mass relevant. But “lighter” doesn't automatically mean “better”: body-mass changes can coincide with changes in strength, energy availability, and performance. BodySpec's power-to-weight ratio explainer separates power output from the mass being moved.

Research in 41 robust older women found negative associations between body fat percentage and jump performance (Santos et al., 2022). That's a finding from a specific sample—not a formula for inches gained by losing fat. Body fat is necessary for health, and these benchmarks aren't a reason for aggressive weight loss.

A BodySpec DEXA scan adds information a scale cannot: total and regional fat mass and lean soft tissue, including leg lean mass. Lean mass is not a direct measurement of muscle strength or explosive power, and a scan cannot predict jump height. BodySpec's DEXA lean-mass guide explains what those measurements represent.

For example, unchanged scale weight can hide changes in fat and lean mass. DEXA describes that composition; a jump result describes performance. Neither replaces the other.

Conclusion

The average vertical jump is meaningful only when age, sex, reference population, and testing protocol match. Your consistently measured personal trend is more informative than a dramatic number from a different kind of jump.

The key is comparing like with like—not treating a percentile as a verdict on athletic ability. Body composition provides another piece of that performance picture. For an objective baseline of fat mass and regional lean mass, book a BodySpec DEXA scan.