Eswatini vs Montenegro: Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Belgium (current US$), gaps
Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Belgium (current US$), gaps over time
- Eswatini
- Montenegro
How they compare
Eswatini currently reports 1,889 current US$ against 1,595 current US$ in Montenegro, a difference of 294 current US$.
That makes Eswatini's figure about 1.2 times Montenegro's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 5 shared years of data; in 2007 it was Eswatini ahead.
Eswatini ranks 141st and Montenegro ranks 142nd of 151 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Eswatini averaged higher in 1 and Montenegro in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Eswatini | Montenegro | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 100,000 current US$ | 35,000 current US$ | 65,000 current US$ | Eswatini |
| 2010s | 2,079 current US$ | 30,204 current US$ | 28,125 current US$ | Montenegro |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, belgium (current us$), gaps, Eswatini or Montenegro?
- Eswatini, at 1,889 current US$ against 1,595 current US$ in Montenegro as of 2017.
- What is the difference in net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, belgium (current us$), gaps between Eswatini and Montenegro?
- 294 current US$, with Eswatini ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Montenegro?
- 5 years are reported by both, from 2007 to 2017.
- How do Eswatini and Montenegro rank globally for net bilateral aid flows from dac donors, belgium (current us$), gaps?
- Eswatini ranks 141st and Montenegro ranks 142nd of 151 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Belgium (current US$), gaps filled. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Net bilateral aid flows from DAC donors, Belgium (current US$) with 345 missing years estimated by linear interpolation between the nearest real observations. Only gaps of 4 years or fewer are filled, and never beyond the first or last actual measurement — these are filled holes, not forecasts.