Saudi Arabia vs Serbia: Financial Institutions Depth Index
Financial Institutions Depth Index over time
- Saudi Arabia
- Serbia
How they compare
Saudi Arabia currently reports 0.1763 against 0.166 in Serbia, a difference of 0.0103.
That makes Saudi Arabia's figure about 1.1 times Serbia's.
The two have swapped places 10 times across 41 shared years of data; in 1980 it was Saudi Arabia ahead.
Saudi Arabia ranks 98th and Serbia ranks 99th of 183 countries.
Across the 5 decades both report, Saudi Arabia averaged higher in 3 and Serbia in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Saudi Arabia | Serbia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980s | 0.0657 | 0 | 0.0657 | Saudi Arabia |
| 1990s | 0.089 | 0.065 | 0.024 | Saudi Arabia |
| 2000s | 0.117 | 0.1203 | 0.0033 | Serbia |
| 2010s | 0.1346 | 0.1475 | 0.0129 | Serbia |
| 2020s | 0.1763 | 0.166 | 0.0103 | Saudi Arabia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher financial institutions depth index, Saudi Arabia or Serbia?
- Saudi Arabia, at 0.1763 against 0.166 in Serbia as of 2020.
- What is the difference in financial institutions depth index between Saudi Arabia and Serbia?
- 0.0103, with Saudi Arabia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Saudi Arabia and Serbia?
- 41 years are reported by both, from 1980 to 2020.
- How do Saudi Arabia and Serbia rank globally for financial institutions depth index?
- Saudi Arabia ranks 98th and Serbia ranks 99th of 183 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- International Monetary Fund, published as Financial Institutions Depth Index. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The dataset contains nine indices that summarize how developed financial institutions and financial markets are in terms of their depth, access, and efficiency. These indices are aggregated into an overall index of financial development. With the coverage of over 180 countries on annual frequency from 1980 onwards, the database should offer a useful analytical tool for researchers and policy makers.