Hungary vs Mongolia: Completion rate, lower secondary education, rural — Value — All age
Completion rate, lower secondary education, rural — Value — All age over time
- Hungary
- Mongolia
How they compare
Hungary currently reports 96.92 % against 95.96 % in Mongolia, a difference of 0.96 %.
Across all 6 years both countries report, Hungary has been ahead every year.
Hungary ranks 22nd and Mongolia ranks 25th of 78 countries.
Hungary has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Hungary | Mongolia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 97.24 % | 65.48 % | 31.76 % | Hungary |
| 2010s | 97.9 % | 76.56 % | 21.33 % | Hungary |
| 2020s | 98.04 % | 91.25 % | 6.79 % | Hungary |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher completion rate, lower secondary education, rural — value — all age, Hungary or Mongolia?
- Hungary, at 96.92 % against 95.96 % in Mongolia as of 2021.
- What is the difference in completion rate, lower secondary education, rural — value — all age between Hungary and Mongolia?
- 0.96 %, with Hungary ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Hungary and Mongolia?
- 6 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2020.
- How do Hungary and Mongolia rank globally for completion rate, lower secondary education, rural — value — all age?
- Hungary ranks 22nd and Mongolia ranks 25th of 78 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Completion rate, lower secondary education, rural — Value — All age ranges or no breakdown by age — Rural. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Suite of Gender Indicators presents a set of indicators relevant to agrifood systems that are disaggregated by sex, with the aim of highlighting gender differences across agrifood systems. The initial set of indicators is based on those used in FAO’s 2023 Status of Women in Agrifood Systems (SWAFS) report and on the recommendations of an expert consultation held in December 2023, and covers key dimensions including economic participation, governance, agency, social norms, assets and services, education, health, and nutrition. Indicator selection was informed by expert judgment and by the availability of data with sufficient geographic and temporal coverage to enable meaningful comparisons across regions and over time. While most indicators are produced and published by FAO and other international organizations, the objective of this domain is to provide a one-stop shop for sex-disaggregated data on agrifood systems.