Hong Kong, China vs Montenegro: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added

Hong Kong, China
158.22 million constant 2015 US$
in 2025
Montenegro
207.61 million constant 2015 US$
in 2025
Hong Kong, China rank
162nd
Montenegro rank
161st

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added over time

  • Hong Kong, China
  • Montenegro
0100.0M200.0M300.0M200020122025

How they compare

Montenegro currently reports 207.61 million constant 2015 US$ against 158.22 million constant 2015 US$ in Hong Kong, China, a difference of 49.39 million constant 2015 US$.

That makes Montenegro's figure about 1.3 times Hong Kong, China's.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 26 shared years of data; in 2000 it was Hong Kong, China ahead.

Hong Kong, China ranks 162nd and Montenegro ranks 161st of 194 countries.

Across the 3 decades both report, Hong Kong, China averaged higher in 2 and Montenegro in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Hong Kong, China Montenegro Difference Ahead
2000s 296.11 million constant 2015 US$ 166.19 million constant 2015 US$ 129.92 million constant 2015 US$ Hong Kong, China
2010s 215.99 million constant 2015 US$ 196.56 million constant 2015 US$ 19.43 million constant 2015 US$ Hong Kong, China
2020s 173.97 million constant 2015 US$ 197.48 million constant 2015 US$ 23.52 million constant 2015 US$ Montenegro

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added, Hong Kong, China or Montenegro?
Montenegro, at 207.61 million constant 2015 US$ against 158.22 million constant 2015 US$ in Hong Kong, China as of 2025.
What is the difference in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added between Hong Kong, China and Montenegro?
49.39 million constant 2015 US$, with Montenegro ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Hong Kong, China and Montenegro?
26 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2025.
How do Hong Kong, China and Montenegro rank globally for agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added?
Hong Kong, China ranks 162nd and Montenegro ranks 161st of 194 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks, published as Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$). 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

Hong Kong, China vs Montenegro: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added. Statizoid, drawing on Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks. Retrieved 16 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-added-constant-2015-us/hong-kong-sar-china/montenegro/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-added-constant-2015-us/hong-kong-sar-china/montenegro/">Hong Kong, China vs Montenegro: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$)
Unit
constant 2015 US$
Source
Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
240 places, 10,644 data points, 1960–2025
Last refreshed

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing corresponds to ISIC (Rev. 4) divisions 01-03 and includes the exploitation of vegetal and animal natural resources, comprising the activities of growing of crops, raising and breeding of animals, harvesting of timber and other plants, animals or animal products from a farm or their natural habitats.Value added is the contribution to the economy by a producer or an industry or an institutional sector, which is estimated by the total value of output produced and deducting the total value of intermediate consumption of goods and services used to produce that output. This indicator is expressed in constant prices, meaning the series has been adjusted to account for price changes over time. The reference year for this adjustment is 2015. This indicator is expressed in United States dollars.