Equatorial Guinea vs Qatar: Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — Gross

Equatorial Guinea
0.0003 1000 USD per person
in 2024
Qatar
0.0001 1000 USD per person
in 2024
Equatorial Guinea rank
118th
Qatar rank
119th

Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — Gross over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Qatar
00.0010.0020.0030.004196119922024

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 0.0003 1000 USD per person against 0.0001 1000 USD per person in Qatar, a difference of 0.0002 1000 USD per person.

That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 2.5 times Qatar's.

The two have swapped places 16 times across 64 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 118th and Qatar ranks 119th of 122 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Equatorial Guinea averaged higher in 3 and Qatar in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Qatar Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0011 1000 USD per person 0 1000 USD per person 0.0011 1000 USD per person Equatorial Guinea
1970s 0.0014 1000 USD per person 0.0014 1000 USD per person 0 1000 USD per person Equatorial Guinea
1980s 0.0014 1000 USD per person 0.0016 1000 USD per person 0.0002 1000 USD per person Qatar
1990s 0.001 1000 USD per person 0.0024 1000 USD per person 0.0014 1000 USD per person Qatar
2000s 0.0007 1000 USD per person 0.002 1000 USD per person 0.0013 1000 USD per person Qatar
2010s 0.0002 1000 USD per person 0.0005 1000 USD per person 0.0003 1000 USD per person Qatar
2020s 0.0003 1000 USD per person 0.0001 1000 USD per person 0.0002 1000 USD per person Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — gross, Equatorial Guinea or Qatar?
Equatorial Guinea, at 0.0003 1000 USD per person against 0.0001 1000 USD per person in Qatar as of 2024.
What is the difference in meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — gross between Equatorial Guinea and Qatar?
0.0002 1000 USD per person, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Qatar?
64 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2024.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Qatar rank globally for meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — gross?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 118th and Qatar ranks 119th of 122 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), per capita. 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

Equatorial Guinea vs Qatar: Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — Gross. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 05 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/meat-of-cattle-with-the-bone-fresh-or-chilled-indigenous-gross-production-value-constant-8/equatorial-guinea/qatar/

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/meat-of-cattle-with-the-bone-fresh-or-chilled-indigenous-gross-production-value-constant-8/equatorial-guinea/qatar/">Equatorial Guinea vs Qatar: Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — Gross</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), per capita
Unit
1000 USD per person
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
123 places, 6,765 data points, 1961–2024
Last refreshed

Meat of cattle with the bone, fresh or chilled (indigenous) — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$) divided by Population, total, matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.