China vs United Kingdom: 11_SDR allocation
11_SDR allocation over time
- China
- United Kingdom
How they compare
China currently reports 48.11 billion against 39.13 billion in United Kingdom, a difference of 8.97 billion.
That makes China's figure about 1.2 times United Kingdom's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 36 shared years of data; in 1990 it was United Kingdom ahead.
China ranks 4th and United Kingdom ranks 5th of 188 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, China averaged higher in 1 and United Kingdom in 3.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | China | United Kingdom | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 329.90 million | 2.67 billion | 2.34 billion | United Kingdom |
| 2000s | 338.86 million | 2.74 billion | 2.40 billion | United Kingdom |
| 2010s | 10.26 billion | 14.88 billion | 4.62 billion | United Kingdom |
| 2020s | 35.71 billion | 31.11 billion | 4.60 billion | China |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher 11_sdr allocation, China or United Kingdom?
- China, at 48.11 billion against 39.13 billion in United Kingdom as of 2025.
- What is the difference in 11_sdr allocation between China and United Kingdom?
- 8.97 billion, with China ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for China and United Kingdom?
- 36 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2025.
- How do China and United Kingdom rank globally for 11_sdr allocation?
- China ranks 4th and United Kingdom ranks 5th 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)).