How many years of comparable data are there for Bhutan and Tuvalu?

55 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2024.

Where does this data come from?

Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, per capita. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Bhutan vs Tuvalu: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015

Bhutan

0.0004 million USD per person

in 2024

Tuvalu

0.0004 million USD per person

in 2024

Bhutan rank

74th

Tuvalu rank

73rd

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 over time

Bhutan
Tuvalu

How they compare

Tuvalu currently reports 0.0004 million USD per person against 0.0004 million USD per person in Bhutan, a difference of 0 million USD per person.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 55 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Tuvalu ahead.

Bhutan ranks 74th and Tuvalu ranks 73rd of 180 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Bhutan averaged higher in 1 and Tuvalu in 5.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Bhutan	Tuvalu	Difference	Ahead
1970s	0.0002 million USD per person	0.0004 million USD per person	0.0002 million USD per person	Tuvalu
1980s	0.0003 million USD per person	0.0004 million USD per person	0.0001 million USD per person	Tuvalu
1990s	0.0003 million USD per person	0.0007 million USD per person	0.0003 million USD per person	Tuvalu
2000s	0.0003 million USD per person	0.0006 million USD per person	0.0003 million USD per person	Tuvalu
2010s	0.0004 million USD per person	0.0005 million USD per person	0.0002 million USD per person	Tuvalu
2020s	0.0004 million USD per person	0.0004 million USD per person	0 million USD per person	Bhutan

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015, Bhutan or Tuvalu?: Tuvalu, at 0.0004 million USD per person against 0.0004 million USD per person in Bhutan as of 2024.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015 between Bhutan and Tuvalu?: 0 million USD per person, with Tuvalu ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Bhutan and Tuvalu?: 55 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2024.
How do Bhutan and Tuvalu rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, 2015?: Bhutan ranks 74th and Tuvalu ranks 73rd of 180 countries.
Where does this data come from?: Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, per capita. 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

Bhutan vs Tuvalu: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 11 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-us-2015-prices-per-capita/bhutan/tuvalu/

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/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-us-2015-prices-per-capita/bhutan/tuvalu/">Bhutan vs Tuvalu: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices, per capita
Unit: million USD per person
Source: Statizoid (derived)
Licence: Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage: 181 places, 9,366 data points, 1970–2024
Last refreshed: 11 September 2026

Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 2015 prices divided by Population, total, matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.