Australia vs Iceland: Final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 US$), per square

Australia
168,437 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Iceland
168,745 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Australia rank
114th
Iceland rank
113th

Final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 US$), per square over time

  • Australia
  • Iceland
050.0k100.0k150.0k196119922023

How they compare

Iceland currently reports 168,745 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre against 168,437 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre in Australia, a difference of 308 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Australia ahead.

Australia ranks 114th and Iceland ranks 113th of 169 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Australia averaged higher in 1 and Iceland in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Iceland Difference Ahead
1970s 36,439 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 42,314 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 5,875 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre Iceland
1980s 49,695 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 66,418 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 16,724 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre Iceland
1990s 67,104 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 83,474 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 16,370 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre Iceland
2000s 97,285 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 118,737 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 21,452 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre Iceland
2010s 132,700 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 131,566 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 1,134 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre Australia
2020s 157,534 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 160,675 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre 3,141 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre Iceland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 us$), per square, Australia or Iceland?
Iceland, at 168,745 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre against 168,437 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre in Australia as of 2023.
What is the difference in final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 us$), per square between Australia and Iceland?
308 constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre, with Iceland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Iceland?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Australia and Iceland rank globally for final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 us$), per square?
Australia ranks 114th and Iceland ranks 113th of 169 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 US$), 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

Australia vs Iceland: Final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 US$), per square. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 11 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/final-consumption-expenditure-constant-2015-us-per-square-kilometre/australia/iceland/

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/final-consumption-expenditure-constant-2015-us-per-square-kilometre/australia/iceland/">Australia vs Iceland: Final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 US$), per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 US$), per square kilometre
Unit
constant 2015 US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
211 places, 8,516 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Final consumption expenditure (constant 2015 US$) 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.