Egypt vs Zimbabwe: Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square

Egypt
915.48 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Zimbabwe
969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Egypt rank
59th
Zimbabwe rank
57th

Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square over time

  • Egypt
  • Zimbabwe
01.0k2.0k3.0k4.0k197019962023

How they compare

Zimbabwe currently reports 969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 915.48 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Egypt, a difference of 54.11 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes Zimbabwe's figure about 1.1 times Egypt's.

The two have swapped places 9 times across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Egypt ahead.

Egypt ranks 59th and Zimbabwe ranks 57th of 121 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Egypt averaged higher in 5 and Zimbabwe in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Egypt Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1970s 238.39 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -9.89 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 248.27 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Egypt
1980s 211.04 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 119.19 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 91.85 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Egypt
1990s 85.24 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 235.7 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 150.46 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Zimbabwe
2000s 336.07 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -5.44 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 341.51 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Egypt
2010s 1,381 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -0.2173 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 1,381 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Egypt
2020s 2,461 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 237.26 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 2,224 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Egypt

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square, Egypt or Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe, at 969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 915.48 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Egypt as of 2023.
What is the difference in net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square between Egypt and Zimbabwe?
54.11 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre, with Zimbabwe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Egypt and Zimbabwe?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Egypt and Zimbabwe rank globally for net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square?
Egypt ranks 59th and Zimbabwe ranks 57th of 121 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), 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

Egypt vs Zimbabwe: Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 25 August 2026, from https://debt.statizoid.com/compare/net-financial-flows-multilateral-nfl-current-us-per-square-kilometre/egypt-arab-rep/zimbabwe/

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://debt.statizoid.com/compare/net-financial-flows-multilateral-nfl-current-us-per-square-kilometre/egypt-arab-rep/zimbabwe/">Egypt vs Zimbabwe: Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), per square kilometre
Unit
NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
133 places, 6,126 data points, 1970–2023
Last refreshed

Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, 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.