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

Peru
813.18 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Zimbabwe
969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre
in 2023
Peru rank
60th
Zimbabwe rank
57th

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

  • Peru
  • Zimbabwe
-2.0k-1.0k01.0k2.0k197019962023

How they compare

Zimbabwe currently reports 969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 813.18 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Peru, a difference of 156.41 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre.

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

The two have swapped places 15 times across 54 shared years of data; in 1970 it was Peru ahead.

Peru ranks 60th and Zimbabwe ranks 57th of 121 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Peru averaged higher in 4 and Zimbabwe in 2.

Head to head by decade

Decade Peru Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1970s 21.48 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -9.89 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 31.37 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Peru
1980s 103.49 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 119.19 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 15.7 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Zimbabwe
1990s 248.32 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 235.7 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 12.62 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Peru
2000s 233.22 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -5.44 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 238.66 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Peru
2010s -347.76 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre -0.2173 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 347.54 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Zimbabwe
2020s 1,265 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 237.26 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre 1,028 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre Peru

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square, Peru or Zimbabwe?
Zimbabwe, at 969.59 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre against 813.18 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre in Peru as of 2023.
What is the difference in net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square between Peru and Zimbabwe?
156.41 NFL, current US$ per square kilometre, with Zimbabwe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Peru and Zimbabwe?
54 years are reported by both, from 1970 to 2023.
How do Peru and Zimbabwe rank globally for net financial flows, multilateral (nfl, current us$), per square?
Peru ranks 60th and Zimbabwe ranks 57th of 121 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Net financial flows, multilateral (NFL, current US$), 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

Peru 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/peru/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/peru/zimbabwe/">Peru 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.