Rwanda vs Uganda: Gross national expenditure (current LCU), per square kilometre

Rwanda
831.98 million current LCU per square kilometre
in 2023
Uganda
949.09 million current LCU per square kilometre
in 2023
Rwanda rank
15th
Uganda rank
12th

Gross national expenditure (current LCU), per square kilometre over time

  • Rwanda
  • Uganda
0200.0M400.0M600.0M800.0M1.0B196119922023

How they compare

Uganda currently reports 949.09 million current LCU per square kilometre against 831.98 million current LCU per square kilometre in Rwanda, a difference of 117.11 million current LCU per square kilometre.

That makes Uganda's figure about 1.1 times Rwanda's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 51 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Rwanda ahead.

Rwanda ranks 15th and Uganda ranks 12th of 183 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Rwanda averaged higher in 2 and Uganda in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Rwanda Uganda Difference Ahead
1960s 442,948 current LCU per square kilometre 297.29 current LCU per square kilometre 442,650 current LCU per square kilometre Rwanda
1980s 8.21 million current LCU per square kilometre 1.02 million current LCU per square kilometre 7.19 million current LCU per square kilometre Rwanda
1990s 19.63 million current LCU per square kilometre 26.33 million current LCU per square kilometre 6.70 million current LCU per square kilometre Uganda
2000s 78.41 million current LCU per square kilometre 104.33 million current LCU per square kilometre 25.92 million current LCU per square kilometre Uganda
2010s 279.37 million current LCU per square kilometre 481.35 million current LCU per square kilometre 201.98 million current LCU per square kilometre Uganda
2020s 620.40 million current LCU per square kilometre 829.29 million current LCU per square kilometre 208.89 million current LCU per square kilometre Uganda

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher gross national expenditure (current lcu), per square kilometre, Rwanda or Uganda?
Uganda, at 949.09 million current LCU per square kilometre against 831.98 million current LCU per square kilometre in Rwanda as of 2023.
What is the difference in gross national expenditure (current lcu), per square kilometre between Rwanda and Uganda?
117.11 million current LCU per square kilometre, with Uganda ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Rwanda and Uganda?
51 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Rwanda and Uganda rank globally for gross national expenditure (current lcu), per square kilometre?
Rwanda ranks 15th and Uganda ranks 12th of 183 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Gross national expenditure (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

Rwanda vs Uganda: Gross national expenditure (current LCU), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 08 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/gross-national-expenditure-current-lcu-per-square-kilometre/rwanda/uganda/

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-national-expenditure-current-lcu-per-square-kilometre/rwanda/uganda/">Rwanda vs Uganda: Gross national expenditure (current LCU), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Gross national expenditure (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
183 places, 8,010 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Gross national expenditure (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.