Rwanda vs United Arab Emirates: Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans
Bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans over time
- Rwanda
- United Arab Emirates
How they compare
Rwanda currently reports 4.2% against 4.1% in United Arab Emirates, a difference of 0.1%.
The two have swapped places 6 times across 16 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Rwanda ahead.
Rwanda ranks 57th and United Arab Emirates ranks 59th of 151 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Rwanda averaged higher in 2 and United Arab Emirates in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Rwanda | United Arab Emirates | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 9.3% | 4.2% | 5.1% | Rwanda |
| 2010s | 6.1% | 5.5% | 0.5% | Rwanda |
| 2020s | 4.4% | 6.2% | 1.7% | United Arab Emirates |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans, Rwanda or United Arab Emirates?
- Rwanda, at 4.2% against 4.1% in United Arab Emirates as of 2024.
- What is the difference in bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans between Rwanda and United Arab Emirates?
- 0.1%, with Rwanda ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Rwanda and United Arab Emirates?
- 16 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2024.
- How do Rwanda and United Arab Emirates rank globally for bank nonperforming loans to total gross loans?
- Rwanda ranks 57th and United Arab Emirates ranks 59th 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.