South Africa vs Zimbabwe: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$)

South Africa
163.28 constant 2015 US$ per person
in 2025
Zimbabwe
164.63 constant 2015 US$ per person
in 2025
South Africa rank
169th
Zimbabwe rank
167th

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$) over time

  • South Africa
  • Zimbabwe
100150200250300350196019922025

How they compare

Zimbabwe currently reports 164.63 constant 2015 US$ per person against 163.28 constant 2015 US$ per person in South Africa, a difference of 1.35 constant 2015 US$ per person.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 57 shared years of data; in 1969 it was Zimbabwe ahead.

South Africa ranks 169th and Zimbabwe ranks 167th of 194 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, South Africa averaged higher in 2 and Zimbabwe in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade South Africa Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 140.18 constant 2015 US$ per person 273.62 constant 2015 US$ per person 133.45 constant 2015 US$ per person Zimbabwe
1970s 136.63 constant 2015 US$ per person 270.44 constant 2015 US$ per person 133.81 constant 2015 US$ per person Zimbabwe
1980s 125.57 constant 2015 US$ per person 219.04 constant 2015 US$ per person 93.47 constant 2015 US$ per person Zimbabwe
1990s 111.11 constant 2015 US$ per person 226.78 constant 2015 US$ per person 115.68 constant 2015 US$ per person Zimbabwe
2000s 118.38 constant 2015 US$ per person 177.5 constant 2015 US$ per person 59.12 constant 2015 US$ per person Zimbabwe
2010s 136.67 constant 2015 US$ per person 115.13 constant 2015 US$ per person 21.54 constant 2015 US$ per person South Africa
2020s 158.2 constant 2015 US$ per person 150.93 constant 2015 US$ per person 7.27 constant 2015 US$ per person South Africa

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 us$), South Africa or Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe, at 164.63 constant 2015 US$ per person against 163.28 constant 2015 US$ per person in South Africa as of 2025.
What is the difference in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 us$) between South Africa and Zimbabwe?
1.35 constant 2015 US$ per person, with Zimbabwe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for South Africa and Zimbabwe?
57 years are reported by both, from 1969 to 2025.
How do South Africa and Zimbabwe rank globally for agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 us$)?
South Africa ranks 169th and Zimbabwe ranks 167th of 194 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$), 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

South Africa vs Zimbabwe: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 16 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-added-constant-2015-us-per-capita/south-africa/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://economy.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-added-constant-2015-us-per-capita/south-africa/zimbabwe/">South Africa vs Zimbabwe: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$), per capita
Unit
constant 2015 US$ per person
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
240 places, 10,644 data points, 1960–2025
Last refreshed

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$) divided by Population, total, matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.