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

Hungary
0.5758 1000 Int$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Zimbabwe
0.5957 1000 Int$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Hungary rank
106th
Zimbabwe rank
103rd

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

  • Hungary
  • Zimbabwe
02468196119922023

How they compare

Zimbabwe currently reports 0.5957 1000 Int$ per square kilometre against 0.5758 1000 Int$ per square kilometre in Hungary, a difference of 0.0199 1000 Int$ per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 61 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Hungary ahead.

Hungary ranks 106th and Zimbabwe ranks 103rd of 169 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Hungary Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 5.69 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0303 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 5.66 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Hungary
1970s 4.53 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0339 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 4.5 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Hungary
1980s 3.82 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0459 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 3.78 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Hungary
1990s 3.19 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.076 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 3.12 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Hungary
2000s 1.98 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.1893 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 1.79 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Hungary
2010s 1.27 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.4583 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.8072 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Hungary
2020s 0.6301 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.5759 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0543 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Hungary

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), Hungary or Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe, at 0.5957 1000 Int$ per square kilometre against 0.5758 1000 Int$ per square kilometre in Hungary as of 2023.
What is the difference in roots and tubers, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016) between Hungary and Zimbabwe?
0.0199 1000 Int$ per square kilometre, with Zimbabwe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hungary and Zimbabwe?
61 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Hungary and Zimbabwe rank globally for roots and tubers, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016)?
Hungary ranks 106th and Zimbabwe ranks 103rd 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

Hungary vs Zimbabwe: 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/hungary/zimbabwe/

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/hungary/zimbabwe/">Hungary vs Zimbabwe: 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.