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

India
1,141 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Zimbabwe
969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
India rank
54th
Zimbabwe rank
57th

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

  • India
  • Zimbabwe
-1.0k01.0k2.0k197019962023

How they compare

India currently reports 1,141 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Zimbabwe, a difference of 171.41 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre.

That makes India's figure about 1.2 times Zimbabwe's.

The two have swapped places 6 times across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was India ahead.

India ranks 54th and Zimbabwe ranks 57th of 121 countries.

India has averaged higher in every one of the 6 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade India Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1970s 116.23 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -9.89 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 126.12 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre India
1980s 411.92 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 119.19 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 292.73 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre India
1990s 445.41 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 235.7 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 209.71 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre India
2000s 192.04 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -5.44 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 197.48 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre India
2010s 580.22 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -0.2173 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 580.44 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre India
2020s 1,488 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 237.26 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 1,251 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre India

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square, India or Zimbabwe?
India, at 1,141 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Zimbabwe as of 2023.
What is the difference in net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square between India and Zimbabwe?
171.41 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre, with India ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for India and Zimbabwe?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do India and Zimbabwe rank globally for net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square?
India ranks 54th and Zimbabwe ranks 57th of 121 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), 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

India 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/india/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/india/zimbabwe/">India 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.