Guatemala vs Norway: Total reserves minus gold (current US$), per square kilometre

Guatemala
194,607 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Norway
220,878 current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Guatemala rank
58th
Norway rank
55th

Total reserves minus gold (current US$), per square kilometre over time

  • Guatemala
  • Norway
050.0k100.0k150.0k200.0k250.0k196119922023

How they compare

Norway currently reports 220,878 current US$ per square kilometre against 194,607 current US$ per square kilometre in Guatemala, a difference of 26,271 current US$ per square kilometre.

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

The two have swapped places 2 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Norway ahead.

Guatemala ranks 58th and Norway ranks 55th of 180 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Guatemala Norway Difference Ahead
1960s 368.11 current US$ per square kilometre 1,279 current US$ per square kilometre 910.47 current US$ per square kilometre Norway
1970s 3,271 current US$ per square kilometre 5,550 current US$ per square kilometre 2,279 current US$ per square kilometre Norway
1980s 2,472 current US$ per square kilometre 28,184 current US$ per square kilometre 25,712 current US$ per square kilometre Norway
1990s 8,205 current US$ per square kilometre 53,236 current US$ per square kilometre 45,031 current US$ per square kilometre Norway
2000s 31,478 current US$ per square kilometre 117,422 current US$ per square kilometre 85,945 current US$ per square kilometre Norway
2010s 80,717 current US$ per square kilometre 161,976 current US$ per square kilometre 81,260 current US$ per square kilometre Norway
2020s 185,338 current US$ per square kilometre 214,170 current US$ per square kilometre 28,832 current US$ per square kilometre Norway

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher total reserves minus gold (current us$), per square kilometre, Guatemala or Norway?
Norway, at 220,878 current US$ per square kilometre against 194,607 current US$ per square kilometre in Guatemala as of 2023.
What is the difference in total reserves minus gold (current us$), per square kilometre between Guatemala and Norway?
26,271 current US$ per square kilometre, with Norway ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Norway?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Guatemala and Norway rank globally for total reserves minus gold (current us$), per square kilometre?
Guatemala ranks 58th and Norway ranks 55th of 180 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Total reserves minus gold (current US$), 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

Guatemala vs Norway: Total reserves minus gold (current US$), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 10 September 2026, from https://economy.statizoid.com/compare/total-reserves-minus-gold-current-us-per-square-kilometre/guatemala/norway/

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/total-reserves-minus-gold-current-us-per-square-kilometre/guatemala/norway/">Guatemala vs Norway: Total reserves minus gold (current US$), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Total reserves minus gold (current US$), per square kilometre
Unit
current US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
181 places, 8,952 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Total reserves minus gold (current 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.