Argentina vs Eswatini: Aquaculture production (metric tons), per square kilometre

Argentina
0.002 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Eswatini
0.0015 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Argentina rank
176th
Eswatini rank
177th

Aquaculture production (metric tons), per square kilometre over time

  • Argentina
  • Eswatini
00.0020.0040.006196119922023

How they compare

Argentina currently reports 0.002 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.0015 metric tons per square kilometre in Eswatini, a difference of 0.0005 metric tons per square kilometre.

That makes Argentina's figure about 1.4 times Eswatini's.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 56 shared years of data; in 1968 it was Argentina ahead.

Argentina ranks 176th and Eswatini ranks 177th of 216 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Argentina averaged higher in 3 and Eswatini in 4.

Head to head by decade

Decade Argentina Eswatini Difference Ahead
1960s 0 metric tons per square kilometre 0 metric tons per square kilometre 0 metric tons per square kilometre Argentina
1970s 0 metric tons per square kilometre 0 metric tons per square kilometre 0 metric tons per square kilometre Argentina
1980s 0.0001 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0007 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0006 metric tons per square kilometre Eswatini
1990s 0.0003 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0036 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0033 metric tons per square kilometre Eswatini
2000s 0.0008 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0028 metric tons per square kilometre 0.002 metric tons per square kilometre Eswatini
2010s 0.0012 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0019 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0007 metric tons per square kilometre Eswatini
2020s 0.0016 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0013 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0003 metric tons per square kilometre Argentina

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher aquaculture production (metric tons), per square kilometre, Argentina or Eswatini?
Argentina, at 0.002 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.0015 metric tons per square kilometre in Eswatini as of 2023.
What is the difference in aquaculture production (metric tons), per square kilometre between Argentina and Eswatini?
0.0005 metric tons per square kilometre, with Argentina ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Argentina and Eswatini?
56 years are reported by both, from 1968 to 2023.
How do Argentina and Eswatini rank globally for aquaculture production (metric tons), per square kilometre?
Argentina ranks 176th and Eswatini ranks 177th of 216 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Aquaculture production (metric tons), 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

Argentina vs Eswatini: Aquaculture production (metric tons), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 21 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/aquaculture-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/argentina/eswatini/

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://environment.statizoid.com/compare/aquaculture-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/argentina/eswatini/">Argentina vs Eswatini: Aquaculture production (metric tons), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Aquaculture production (metric tons), per square kilometre
Unit
metric tons per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
264 places, 15,328 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Aquaculture production (metric tons) 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.