Republic of Korea vs Norway: Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans
Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans over time
- Republic of Korea
- Norway
How they compare
Norway currently reports 0.4% against 0.3% in Republic of Korea, a difference of 0.1%.
That makes Norway's figure about 1.7 times Republic of Korea's.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Norway has been ahead every year.
Republic of Korea ranks 150th and Norway ranks 147th of 151 countries.
Norway has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Republic of Korea | Norway | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.6% | 1.3% | 0.7% | Norway |
| 2010s | 0.5% | 1.2% | 0.7% | Norway |
| 2020s | 0.2% | 0.5% | 0.2% | Norway |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans, Republic of Korea or Norway?
- Norway, at 0.4% against 0.3% in Republic of Korea as of 2025.
- What is the difference in bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans between Republic of Korea and Norway?
- 0.1%, with Norway ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Republic of Korea and Norway?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2023.
- How do Republic of Korea and Norway rank globally for bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans?
- Republic of Korea ranks 150th and Norway ranks 147th of 151 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Financial Soundness Indicators, International Monetary Fund (IMF), published as Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans (%). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The indicator measures the proportion of a deposit taker’s loan portfolio that is impaired or at risk of default. It is calculated as the ratio of non-performing loans (NPLs) to total gross loans, where NPLs are defined as loans that are past due by 90 days or more or are otherwise considered unlikely to be repaid in full without the realization of collateral. Both non-performing loans and total gross loans should be reported at their gross book value, without deducting for loan-loss provisions or collateral. This indicator provides a key measure of asset quality and potential credit risk in the banking system.