Eswatini vs Singapore: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU), per

Eswatini
224,342 constant LCU per square kilometre
in 2023
Singapore
221,031 constant LCU per square kilometre
in 2023
Eswatini rank
101st
Singapore rank
102nd

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU), per over time

  • Eswatini
  • Singapore
200.0k400.0k600.0k196119922023

How they compare

Eswatini currently reports 224,342 constant LCU per square kilometre against 221,031 constant LCU per square kilometre in Singapore, a difference of 3,311 constant LCU per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 53 shared years of data; in 1971 it was Singapore ahead.

Eswatini ranks 101st and Singapore ranks 102nd of 194 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Eswatini averaged higher in 3 and Singapore in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini Singapore Difference Ahead
1970s 159,147 constant LCU per square kilometre 539,735 constant LCU per square kilometre 380,587 constant LCU per square kilometre Singapore
1980s 159,855 constant LCU per square kilometre 548,209 constant LCU per square kilometre 388,354 constant LCU per square kilometre Singapore
1990s 172,502 constant LCU per square kilometre 300,403 constant LCU per square kilometre 127,901 constant LCU per square kilometre Singapore
2000s 211,068 constant LCU per square kilometre 179,010 constant LCU per square kilometre 32,058 constant LCU per square kilometre Eswatini
2010s 250,275 constant LCU per square kilometre 192,420 constant LCU per square kilometre 57,855 constant LCU per square kilometre Eswatini
2020s 243,741 constant LCU per square kilometre 218,454 constant LCU per square kilometre 25,286 constant LCU per square kilometre Eswatini

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant lcu), per, Eswatini or Singapore?
Eswatini, at 224,342 constant LCU per square kilometre against 221,031 constant LCU per square kilometre in Singapore as of 2023.
What is the difference in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant lcu), per between Eswatini and Singapore?
3,311 constant LCU per square kilometre, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Singapore?
53 years are reported by both, from 1971 to 2023.
How do Eswatini and Singapore rank globally for agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant lcu), per?
Eswatini ranks 101st and Singapore ranks 102nd of 194 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU), 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 Singapore: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU), per. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 17 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-added-constant-lcu-per-square-kilometre/eswatini/singapore/

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-lcu-per-square-kilometre/eswatini/singapore/">Eswatini vs Singapore: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU), per</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU), per square kilometre
Unit
constant LCU per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
195 places, 7,966 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU) 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.