Chad vs Iceland: Agricultural output, per square kilometre

Chad
4,351 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Iceland
2,618 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Chad rank
148th
Iceland rank
151st

Agricultural output, per square kilometre over time

  • Chad
  • Iceland
1.0k2.0k3.0k4.0k196119922023

How they compare

Chad currently reports 4,351 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre against 2,618 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre in Iceland, a difference of 1,733 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Chad's figure about 1.7 times Iceland's.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 55 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Iceland ahead.

Chad ranks 148th and Iceland ranks 151st of 158 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Chad averaged higher in 3 and Iceland in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chad Iceland Difference Ahead
1960s 866.03 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 1,708 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 841.88 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre Iceland
1970s 889.91 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 1,859 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 969.01 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre Iceland
1980s 1,090 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 1,926 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 835.89 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre Iceland
1990s 1,600 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 1,753 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 152.34 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre Iceland
2000s 2,195 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 2,095 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 99.71 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre Chad
2010s 3,570 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 2,508 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 1,061 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre Chad
2020s 4,238 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 2,619 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre 1,619 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre Chad

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher agricultural output, per square kilometre, Chad or Iceland?
Chad, at 4,351 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre against 2,618 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre in Iceland as of 2023.
What is the difference in agricultural output, per square kilometre between Chad and Iceland?
1,733 constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre, with Chad ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chad and Iceland?
55 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Chad and Iceland rank globally for agricultural output, per square kilometre?
Chad ranks 148th and Iceland ranks 151st of 158 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Agricultural output, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Chad vs Iceland: Agricultural output, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 11 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/agricultural-output-per-square-kilometre/chad/iceland/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/agricultural-output-per-square-kilometre/chad/iceland/">Chad vs Iceland: Agricultural output, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Agricultural output, per square kilometre
Unit
constant 2014-2016 US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
158 places, 8,910 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Agricultural output divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.