Eswatini vs Zambia: Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)

Eswatini
1 1000 Int$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Zambia
0.9568 1000 Int$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Eswatini rank
86th
Zambia rank
88th

Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016) over time

  • Eswatini
  • Zambia
00.20.40.60.81196119922023

How they compare

Eswatini currently reports 1 1000 Int$ per square kilometre against 0.9568 1000 Int$ per square kilometre in Zambia, a difference of 0.0432 1000 Int$ per square kilometre.

Across all 49 years both countries report, Eswatini has been ahead every year.

Eswatini ranks 86th and Zambia ranks 88th of 169 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini Zambia Difference Ahead
1960s 0.3397 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0402 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.2995 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Eswatini
1970s 0.4543 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0556 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.3987 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Eswatini
1980s 0.5217 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0902 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.4315 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Eswatini
1990s 0.5668 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.1431 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.4237 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Eswatini
2000s 0.7509 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.2515 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.4995 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Eswatini
2010s 0.9284 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.4578 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.4706 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Eswatini
2020s 1 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.8272 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.1732 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Eswatini

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher roots and tubers, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016), Eswatini or Zambia?
Eswatini, at 1 1000 Int$ per square kilometre against 0.9568 1000 Int$ per square kilometre in Zambia as of 2023.
What is the difference in roots and tubers, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016) between Eswatini and Zambia?
0.0432 1000 Int$ per square kilometre, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Zambia?
49 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Eswatini and Zambia rank globally for roots and tubers, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016)?
Eswatini ranks 86th and Zambia ranks 88th of 169 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Roots and Tubers, Total — 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

Eswatini vs Zambia: Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 06 October 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/roots-and-tubers-total-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-i-per-square/eswatini/zambia/

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/roots-and-tubers-total-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-i-per-square/eswatini/zambia/">Eswatini vs Zambia: Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Roots and Tubers, Total — 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
170 places, 9,616 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Roots and Tubers, Total — 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.