Australia vs Guatemala: Gross domestic savings (current LCU), per square kilometre

Australia
94,580 current LCU per square kilometre
in 2023
Guatemala
108,567 current LCU per square kilometre
in 2023
Australia rank
139th
Guatemala rank
137th

Gross domestic savings (current LCU), per square kilometre over time

  • Australia
  • Guatemala
0100.0k200.0k300.0k196119922023

How they compare

Guatemala currently reports 108,567 current LCU per square kilometre against 94,580 current LCU per square kilometre in Australia, a difference of 13,987 current LCU per square kilometre.

That makes Guatemala's figure about 1.1 times Australia's.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Guatemala ahead.

Australia ranks 139th and Guatemala ranks 137th of 184 countries.

Guatemala has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Guatemala Difference Ahead
1960s 940.08 current LCU per square kilometre 1,297 current LCU per square kilometre 356.52 current LCU per square kilometre Guatemala
1970s 2,553 current LCU per square kilometre 5,384 current LCU per square kilometre 2,831 current LCU per square kilometre Guatemala
1980s 7,842 current LCU per square kilometre 11,702 current LCU per square kilometre 3,860 current LCU per square kilometre Guatemala
1990s 15,659 current LCU per square kilometre 67,926 current LCU per square kilometre 52,267 current LCU per square kilometre Guatemala
2000s 30,404 current LCU per square kilometre 64,176 current LCU per square kilometre 33,772 current LCU per square kilometre Guatemala
2010s 53,825 current LCU per square kilometre 154,651 current LCU per square kilometre 100,826 current LCU per square kilometre Guatemala
2020s 80,377 current LCU per square kilometre 142,403 current LCU per square kilometre 62,025 current LCU per square kilometre Guatemala

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher gross domestic savings (current lcu), per square kilometre, Australia or Guatemala?
Guatemala, at 108,567 current LCU per square kilometre against 94,580 current LCU per square kilometre in Australia as of 2023.
What is the difference in gross domestic savings (current lcu), per square kilometre between Australia and Guatemala?
13,987 current LCU per square kilometre, with Guatemala ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Guatemala?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Australia and Guatemala rank globally for gross domestic savings (current lcu), per square kilometre?
Australia ranks 139th and Guatemala ranks 137th of 184 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Gross domestic savings (current 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

Australia vs Guatemala: Gross domestic savings (current LCU), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 05 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/gross-domestic-savings-current-lcu-per-square-kilometre/australia/guatemala/

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/gross-domestic-savings-current-lcu-per-square-kilometre/australia/guatemala/">Australia vs Guatemala: Gross domestic savings (current LCU), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Gross domestic savings (current LCU), per square kilometre
Unit
current LCU per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
184 places, 8,168 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Gross domestic savings (current 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.