Ecuador vs Slovenia: Ammonia, anhydrous — Import value
Ammonia, anhydrous — Import value over time
- Ecuador
- Slovenia
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 741.52 1000 USD against 640 1000 USD in Slovenia, a difference of 101.52 1000 USD.
That makes Ecuador's figure about 1.2 times Slovenia's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 23 shared years of data; in 2002 it was Ecuador ahead.
Ecuador ranks 60th and Slovenia ranks 63rd of 189 countries.
Ecuador has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Slovenia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 271.36 1000 USD | 105.54 1000 USD | 165.83 1000 USD | Ecuador |
| 2010s | 469.38 1000 USD | 284.53 1000 USD | 184.85 1000 USD | Ecuador |
| 2020s | 789.35 1000 USD | 569.83 1000 USD | 219.52 1000 USD | Ecuador |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher ammonia, anhydrous — import value, Ecuador or Slovenia?
- Ecuador, at 741.52 1000 USD against 640 1000 USD in Slovenia as of 2024.
- What is the difference in ammonia, anhydrous — import value between Ecuador and Slovenia?
- 101.52 1000 USD, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Slovenia?
- 23 years are reported by both, from 2002 to 2024.
- How do Ecuador and Slovenia rank globally for ammonia, anhydrous — import value?
- Ecuador ranks 60th and Slovenia ranks 63rd of 189 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Ammonia, anhydrous — Import value. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Fertilizers by Product dataset contains information on the Production, Trade and Agriculture Use of inorganic (chemical or mineral) fertilizers products. The fertilizer statistics data are for a set of 23 product categories. Both straight and compound fertilizers are included. Methodological details can be found at: https://files-faostat.fao.org/production/RFB/RFB_EN_README.pdf