Australia vs New Zealand: Insufficiently active
Australia
89.02
in 2016
New Zealand
88.74
in 2016
Australia rank
7th
New Zealand rank
9th
Insufficiently active over time
- Australia
- New Zealand
How they compare
Australia currently reports 89.02 against 88.74 in New Zealand, a difference of 0.28.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 16 shared years of data; in 2001 it was New Zealand ahead.
Australia ranks 7th and New Zealand ranks 9th of 132 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Australia averaged higher in 1 and New Zealand in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Australia | New Zealand | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 87.58 | 87.61 | 0.0318 | New Zealand |
| 2010s | 88.63 | 88.44 | 0.1993 | Australia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher insufficiently active, Australia or New Zealand?
- Australia, at 89.02 against 88.74 in New Zealand as of 2016.
- What is the difference in insufficiently active between Australia and New Zealand?
- 0.28, with Australia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and New Zealand?
- 16 years are reported by both, from 2001 to 2016.
- How do Australia and New Zealand rank globally for insufficiently active?
- Australia ranks 7th and New Zealand ranks 9th 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.