How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Guatemala?

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$, per capita. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Ecuador vs Guatemala: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, per

Ecuador

0.0006 million USD per person

in 2024

Guatemala

0.0006 million USD per person

in 2024

Ecuador rank

53rd

Guatemala rank

56th

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

Ecuador
Guatemala

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 0.0006 million USD per person against 0.0006 million USD per person in Guatemala, a difference of 0 million USD per person.

The two have swapped places 6 times across 55 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Ecuador ahead.

Ecuador ranks 53rd and Guatemala ranks 56th of 180 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 4 and Guatemala in 2.

Head to head by decade

Decade	Ecuador	Guatemala	Difference	Ahead
1970s	0.0002 million USD per person	0.0001 million USD per person	0.0001 million USD per person	Ecuador
1980s	0.0003 million USD per person	0.0002 million USD per person	0.0001 million USD per person	Ecuador
1990s	0.0003 million USD per person	0.0002 million USD per person	0.0001 million USD per person	Ecuador
2000s	0.0002 million USD per person	0.0002 million USD per person	0 million USD per person	Guatemala
2010s	0.0004 million USD per person	0.0004 million USD per person	0.0001 million USD per person	Ecuador
2020s	0.0005 million USD per person	0.0005 million USD per person	0 million USD per person	Guatemala

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, per, Ecuador or Guatemala?: Ecuador, at 0.0006 million USD per person against 0.0006 million USD per person in Guatemala as of 2024.
What is the difference in value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, per between Ecuador and Guatemala?: 0 million USD per person, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Guatemala?: 55 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2024.
How do Ecuador and Guatemala rank globally for value added (agriculture, forestry and fishing) — value us$, per?: Ecuador ranks 53rd and Guatemala ranks 56th of 180 countries.
Where does this data come from?: Statizoid (derived), published as Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 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

Ecuador vs Guatemala: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, per. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 12 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/value-added-agriculture-forestry-and-fishing-value-us-per-capita/ecuador/guatemala/

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-per-capita/ecuador/guatemala/">Ecuador vs Guatemala: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, per</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator: Value Added (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) — Value US$, 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: 12 September 2026

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