Equatorial Guinea vs Solomon Islands: SDRs holdings, US dollar, per square kilometre

Equatorial Guinea
1,059 units per square kilometre
in 2023
Solomon Islands
923.1 units per square kilometre
in 2023
Equatorial Guinea rank
127th
Solomon Islands rank
130th

SDRs holdings, US dollar, per square kilometre over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Solomon Islands
05001.0k1.5k196119922023

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 1,059 units per square kilometre against 923.1 units per square kilometre in Solomon Islands, a difference of 135.9 units per square kilometre.

That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 1.1 times Solomon Islands's.

The two have swapped places 13 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Solomon Islands ahead.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 127th and Solomon Islands ranks 130th of 189 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Equatorial Guinea averaged higher in 5 and Solomon Islands in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Solomon Islands Difference Ahead
1960s 0 units per square kilometre 0 units per square kilometre 0 units per square kilometre —
1970s 67.48 units per square kilometre 0.1883 units per square kilometre 67.29 units per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea
1980s 16.75 units per square kilometre 35 units per square kilometre 18.25 units per square kilometre Solomon Islands
1990s 57.21 units per square kilometre 2.12 units per square kilometre 55.1 units per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea
2000s 163.24 units per square kilometre 52.03 units per square kilometre 111.2 units per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea
2010s 1,120 units per square kilometre 323.58 units per square kilometre 795.93 units per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea
2020s 1,033 units per square kilometre 744.24 units per square kilometre 288.66 units per square kilometre Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher sdrs holdings, us dollar, per square kilometre, Equatorial Guinea or Solomon Islands?
Equatorial Guinea, at 1,059 units per square kilometre against 923.1 units per square kilometre in Solomon Islands as of 2023.
What is the difference in sdrs holdings, us dollar, per square kilometre between Equatorial Guinea and Solomon Islands?
135.9 units per square kilometre, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Solomon Islands?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Solomon Islands rank globally for sdrs holdings, us dollar, per square kilometre?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 127th and Solomon Islands ranks 130th of 189 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as SDRs holdings, US dollar, 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

Equatorial Guinea vs Solomon Islands: SDRs holdings, US dollar, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 11 October 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/sdrs-holdings-us-dollar-per-square-kilometre/equatorial-guinea/solomon-islands/

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/sdrs-holdings-us-dollar-per-square-kilometre/equatorial-guinea/solomon-islands/">Equatorial Guinea vs Solomon Islands: SDRs holdings, US dollar, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
SDRs holdings, US dollar, per square kilometre
Unit
units per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
191 places, 10,792 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

SDRs holdings, US dollar 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.