Cuba vs Eswatini: Raw milk of cattle — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)

Cuba
0.9253 1000 Int$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Eswatini
0.9817 1000 Int$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Cuba rank
92nd
Eswatini rank
91st

Raw milk of cattle — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016) over time

  • Cuba
  • Eswatini
1234196119922023

How they compare

Eswatini currently reports 0.9817 1000 Int$ per square kilometre against 0.9253 1000 Int$ per square kilometre in Cuba, a difference of 0.0564 1000 Int$ per square kilometre.

That makes Eswatini's figure about 1.1 times Cuba's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Cuba ahead.

Cuba ranks 92nd and Eswatini ranks 91st of 163 countries.

Cuba has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Cuba Eswatini Difference Ahead
1960s 1.83 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.5726 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 1.26 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Cuba
1970s 3.14 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.7573 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 2.38 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Cuba
1980s 4.32 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.9315 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 3.38 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Cuba
1990s 2.67 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.9608 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 1.71 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Cuba
2000s 2.09 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.9499 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 1.14 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Cuba
2010s 2.28 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.9538 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 1.33 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Cuba
2020s 1.43 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.9327 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.5005 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Cuba

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher raw milk of cattle — gross production value (constant 2014-2016), Cuba or Eswatini?
Eswatini, at 0.9817 1000 Int$ per square kilometre against 0.9253 1000 Int$ per square kilometre in Cuba as of 2023.
What is the difference in raw milk of cattle — gross production value (constant 2014-2016) between Cuba and Eswatini?
0.0564 1000 Int$ per square kilometre, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cuba and Eswatini?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Cuba and Eswatini rank globally for raw milk of cattle — gross production value (constant 2014-2016)?
Cuba ranks 92nd and Eswatini ranks 91st of 163 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Raw milk of cattle — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$), 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

Cuba vs Eswatini: Raw milk of cattle — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 05 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/raw-milk-of-cattle-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-i-per-square/cuba/eswatini/

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/raw-milk-of-cattle-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-i-per-square/cuba/eswatini/">Cuba vs Eswatini: Raw milk of cattle — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Raw milk of cattle — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$), per square kilometre
Unit
1000 Int$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
164 places, 9,089 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Raw milk of cattle — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$) 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.