Ecuador vs Zimbabwe: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added

Ecuador
10.24 billion constant LCU
in 2025
Zimbabwe
8.00 billion constant LCU
in 2025
Ecuador rank
117th
Zimbabwe rank
120th

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added over time

  • Ecuador
  • Zimbabwe
2.0B4.0B6.0B8.0B10.0B196019922025

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 10.24 billion constant LCU against 8.00 billion constant LCU in Zimbabwe, a difference of 2.24 billion constant LCU.

That makes Ecuador's figure about 1.3 times Zimbabwe's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 57 shared years of data; in 1969 it was Zimbabwe ahead.

Ecuador ranks 117th and Zimbabwe ranks 120th of 197 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1960s 1.50 billion constant LCU 3.97 billion constant LCU 2.47 billion constant LCU Zimbabwe
1970s 1.67 billion constant LCU 4.62 billion constant LCU 2.95 billion constant LCU Zimbabwe
1980s 2.00 billion constant LCU 5.34 billion constant LCU 3.34 billion constant LCU Zimbabwe
1990s 3.26 billion constant LCU 7.17 billion constant LCU 3.91 billion constant LCU Zimbabwe
2000s 4.65 billion constant LCU 6.27 billion constant LCU 1.62 billion constant LCU Zimbabwe
2010s 7.12 billion constant LCU 4.75 billion constant LCU 2.37 billion constant LCU Ecuador
2020s 9.27 billion constant LCU 7.03 billion constant LCU 2.25 billion constant LCU Ecuador

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added, Ecuador or Zimbabwe?
Ecuador, at 10.24 billion constant LCU against 8.00 billion constant LCU in Zimbabwe as of 2025.
What is the difference in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added between Ecuador and Zimbabwe?
2.24 billion constant LCU, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Zimbabwe?
57 years are reported by both, from 1969 to 2025.
How do Ecuador and Zimbabwe rank globally for agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added?
Ecuador ranks 117th and Zimbabwe ranks 120th of 197 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 LCU). 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

Ecuador vs Zimbabwe: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added. Statizoid, drawing on Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks. Retrieved 08 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-added-constant-lcu/ecuador/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 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-lcu/ecuador/zimbabwe/">Ecuador vs Zimbabwe: Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant LCU)
Unit
constant LCU
Source
Country official statistics, National Statistical Organizations and/or Central Banks
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
198 places, 8,503 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 varies by country. This series is expressed in local currency units.