Congo vs Iceland: Tomatoes — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$)

Congo
0.0054 1000 Int$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Iceland
0.0057 1000 Int$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Congo rank
138th
Iceland rank
136th

Tomatoes — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$) over time

  • Congo
  • Iceland
00.0020.0040.0060.0080.01196119922023

How they compare

Iceland currently reports 0.0057 1000 Int$ per square kilometre against 0.0054 1000 Int$ per square kilometre in Congo, a difference of 0.0003 1000 Int$ per square kilometre.

That makes Iceland's figure about 1.1 times Congo's.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Congo ahead.

Congo ranks 138th and Iceland ranks 136th of 148 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Congo averaged higher in 4 and Iceland in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade Congo Iceland Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0051 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0013 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0038 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Congo
1970s 0.009 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0018 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0072 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Congo
1980s 0.0094 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.003 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0064 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Congo
1990s 0.005 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0038 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0013 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Congo
2000s 0.0042 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0063 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0021 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Iceland
2010s 0.0053 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0069 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0016 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Iceland
2020s 0.0054 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.006 1000 Int$ per square kilometre 0.0005 1000 Int$ per square kilometre Iceland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher tomatoes — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand i$), Congo or Iceland?
Iceland, at 0.0057 1000 Int$ per square kilometre against 0.0054 1000 Int$ per square kilometre in Congo as of 2023.
What is the difference in tomatoes — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand i$) between Congo and Iceland?
0.0003 1000 Int$ per square kilometre, with Iceland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Congo and Iceland?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Congo and Iceland rank globally for tomatoes — gross production value (constant 2014-2016 thousand i$)?
Congo ranks 138th and Iceland ranks 136th of 148 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Tomatoes — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$), 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

Congo vs Iceland: Tomatoes — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 24 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/tomatoes-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-i-per-square-kilometre/congo-rep/iceland/

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/tomatoes-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-i-per-square-kilometre/congo-rep/iceland/">Congo vs Iceland: Tomatoes — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand I$)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Tomatoes — 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
149 places, 7,554 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Tomatoes — 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.