China, Hong Kong SAR vs United Republic of Tanzania: Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) — Value, annual growth rate

China, Hong Kong SAR
2.01 % change on previous year
in 2026
United Republic of Tanzania
2.02 % change on previous year
in 2026
China, Hong Kong SAR rank
76th
United Republic of Tanzania rank
75th

Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) — Value, annual growth rate over time

  • China, Hong Kong SAR
  • United Republic of Tanzania
0102030200120132026

How they compare

United Republic of Tanzania currently reports 2.02 % change on previous year against 2.01 % change on previous year in China, Hong Kong SAR, a difference of 0.01 % change on previous year.

The two have swapped places 6 times across 26 shared years of data; in 2001 it was United Republic of Tanzania ahead.

China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 76th and United Republic of Tanzania ranks 75th of 203 countries.

United Republic of Tanzania has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade China, Hong Kong SAR United Republic of Tanzania Difference Ahead
2000s 3.01 % change on previous year 8.98 % change on previous year 5.97 % change on previous year United Republic of Tanzania
2010s 5.47 % change on previous year 9.06 % change on previous year 3.6 % change on previous year United Republic of Tanzania
2020s 2.22 % change on previous year 3.87 % change on previous year 1.65 % change on previous year United Republic of Tanzania

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher consumer prices, food indices (2015 = 100) — value, annual growth rate, China, Hong Kong SAR or United Republic of Tanzania?
United Republic of Tanzania, at 2.02 % change on previous year against 2.01 % change on previous year in China, Hong Kong SAR as of 2026.
What is the difference in consumer prices, food indices (2015 = 100) — value, annual growth rate between China, Hong Kong SAR and United Republic of Tanzania?
0.01 % change on previous year, with United Republic of Tanzania ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China, Hong Kong SAR and United Republic of Tanzania?
26 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2026.
How do China, Hong Kong SAR and United Republic of Tanzania rank globally for consumer prices, food indices (2015 = 100) — value, annual growth rate?
China, Hong Kong SAR ranks 76th and United Republic of Tanzania ranks 75th of 203 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) — Value, annual growth rate. 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

China, Hong Kong SAR vs United Republic of Tanzania: Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) — Value, annual growth rate. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 23 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/consumer-prices-food-indices-2015-100-value-annual-growth-rate/china-hong-kong-sar/united-republic-of-tanzania/

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/consumer-prices-food-indices-2015-100-value-annual-growth-rate/china-hong-kong-sar/united-republic-of-tanzania/">China, Hong Kong SAR vs United Republic of Tanzania: Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) — Value, annual growth rate</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) — Value, annual growth rate
Unit
% change on previous year
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
204 places, 5,236 data points, 2001–2026
Last refreshed

The year-on-year percentage change in Consumer Prices, Food Indices (2015 = 100) — Value. Computed from consecutive annual observations; years either side of a gap are skipped rather than bridged.