Australia vs Low income (World Bank): Insufficiently active
Australia
89.02
in 2016
Low income (World Bank)
84.92
in 2016
Australia rank
7th
Low income (World Bank) rank
4th
Insufficiently active over time
- Australia
- Low income (World Bank)
How they compare
Australia currently reports 89.02 against 84.92 in Low income (World Bank), a difference of 4.1.
Across all 16 years both countries report, Australia has been ahead every year.
Australia ranks 7th and Low income (World Bank) ranks 4th of 132 countries.
Australia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | Low income (World Bank) | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 87.58 | 85.23 | 2.35 | Australia |
| 2010s | 88.63 | 85.01 | 3.62 | Australia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher insufficiently active, Australia or Low income (World Bank)?
- Australia, at 89.02 against 84.92 in Low income (World Bank) as of 2016.
- What is the difference in insufficiently active between Australia and Low income (World Bank)?
- 4.1, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Low income (World Bank)?
- 16 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2016.
- How do Australia and Low income (World Bank) rank globally for insufficiently active?
- Australia ranks 7th and Low income (World Bank) ranks 4th of 132 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- World Health Organization, Global Health Observatory, published as Insufficiently active (crude estimate). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.