Cape Verde vs Seychelles: 11_SDR allocation
11_SDR allocation over time
- Cape Verde
- Seychelles
How they compare
Cape Verde currently reports 42.36 million against 40.17 million in Seychelles, a difference of 2.20 million.
That makes Cape Verde's figure about 1.1 times Seychelles's.
Across all 36 years both countries report, Cape Verde has been ahead every year.
Cape Verde ranks 168th and Seychelles ranks 171st of 188 countries.
Cape Verde has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cape Verde | Seychelles | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 863,754 | 568,636 | 295,119 | Cape Verde |
| 2000s | 887,230 | 581,565 | 305,665 | Cape Verde |
| 2010s | 13.46 million | 12.16 million | 1.30 million | Cape Verde |
| 2020s | 32.84 million | 30.95 million | 1.89 million | Cape Verde |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher 11_sdr allocation, Cape Verde or Seychelles?
- Cape Verde, at 42.36 million against 40.17 million in Seychelles as of 2025.
- What is the difference in 11_sdr allocation between Cape Verde and Seychelles?
- 2.20 million, with Cape Verde ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cape Verde and Seychelles?
- 36 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2025.
- How do Cape Verde and Seychelles rank globally for 11_sdr allocation?
- Cape Verde ranks 168th and Seychelles ranks 171st of 188 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- IMF, published as 11_SDR allocation. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
SDRs are international reserve assets created by the IMF and allocated to members to supplement existing official reserves. Holdings of SDRs by an IMF member are recorded as an asset, while the allocation of SDRs is recorded as the incurrence of a liability of the member receiving them. The membership of the SDR Department incurs the asset and liability position among themselves, not with the IMF. The holdings and allocations should be shown gross, rather than netted (Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual, sixth edition (BPM6)).