Burkina Faso vs Malawi: Protein supply from animal foods vs. GDP per capita

Burkina Faso
16.23 grams of protein per day per capita
in 2023
Malawi
15.99 grams of protein per day per capita
in 2023
Burkina Faso rank
161st
Malawi rank
164th

Protein supply from animal foods vs. GDP per capita over time

  • Burkina Faso
  • Malawi
5101520196119922023

How they compare

Burkina Faso currently reports 16.23 grams of protein per day per capita against 15.99 grams of protein per day per capita in Malawi, a difference of 0.24 grams of protein per day per capita.

The two have swapped places 6 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Burkina Faso ahead.

Burkina Faso ranks 161st and Malawi ranks 164th of 192 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Burkina Faso averaged higher in 6 and Malawi in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Burkina Faso Malawi Difference Ahead
1960s 5.78 grams of protein per day per capita 4.18 grams of protein per day per capita 1.6 grams of protein per day per capita Burkina Faso
1970s 5.82 grams of protein per day per capita 6.56 grams of protein per day per capita 0.7367 grams of protein per day per capita Malawi
1980s 7.06 grams of protein per day per capita 5.68 grams of protein per day per capita 1.39 grams of protein per day per capita Burkina Faso
1990s 9.52 grams of protein per day per capita 4.4 grams of protein per day per capita 5.13 grams of protein per day per capita Burkina Faso
2000s 10.5 grams of protein per day per capita 4.59 grams of protein per day per capita 5.9 grams of protein per day per capita Burkina Faso
2010s 12.92 grams of protein per day per capita 11.25 grams of protein per day per capita 1.67 grams of protein per day per capita Burkina Faso
2020s 17.66 grams of protein per day per capita 16.48 grams of protein per day per capita 1.18 grams of protein per day per capita Burkina Faso

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher protein supply from animal foods vs. gdp per capita, Burkina Faso or Malawi?
Burkina Faso, at 16.23 grams of protein per day per capita against 15.99 grams of protein per day per capita in Malawi as of 2023.
What is the difference in protein supply from animal foods vs. gdp per capita between Burkina Faso and Malawi?
0.24 grams of protein per day per capita, with Burkina Faso ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Burkina Faso and Malawi?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Burkina Faso and Malawi rank globally for protein supply from animal foods vs. gdp per capita?
Burkina Faso ranks 161st and Malawi ranks 164th of 192 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Protein supply from animal foods vs. GDP 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

Burkina Faso vs Malawi: Protein supply from animal foods vs. GDP per capita. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data. Retrieved 04 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/animal-protein-vs-gdp/burkina-faso/malawi/

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 (Our World in Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/animal-protein-vs-gdp/burkina-faso/malawi/">Burkina Faso vs Malawi: Protein supply from animal foods vs. GDP per capita</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Protein supply from animal foods vs. GDP per capita
Unit
grams of protein per day per capita
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
192 places, 10,214 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Quantity that is available for consumption at the end of the supply chain. It does not account for consumer waste, so the quantity that is actually consumed may be lower.