Eswatini vs Republic of Moldova: Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)
Eswatini
93.3%
in 2019
Republic of Moldova
93.6%
in 2019
Eswatini rank
118th
Republic of Moldova rank
116th
Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) over time
- Eswatini
- Republic of Moldova
How they compare
Republic of Moldova currently reports 93.6% against 93.3% in Eswatini, a difference of 0.3%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 11 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Republic of Moldova ahead.
Eswatini ranks 118th and Republic of Moldova ranks 116th of 191 countries.
Republic of Moldova has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Eswatini | Republic of Moldova | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 81.2% | 82.8% | 1.7% | Republic of Moldova |
| 2010s | 87.8% | 88.9% | 1.1% | Republic of Moldova |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita), Eswatini or Republic of Moldova?
- Republic of Moldova, at 93.6% against 93.3% in Eswatini as of 2019.
- What is the difference in getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) between Eswatini and Republic of Moldova?
- 0.3%, with Republic of Moldova ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Republic of Moldova?
- 11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
- How do Eswatini and Republic of Moldova rank globally for getting electricity: cost to get electricity (% of income per capita)?
- Eswatini ranks 118th and Republic of Moldova ranks 116th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Getting electricity: Cost to get electricity (% of income per capita) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for cost benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.