China vs United States: 11_SDR allocation
11_SDR allocation over time
- China
- United States
How they compare
United States currently reports 152.62 billion against 48.11 billion in China, a difference of 104.51 billion.
That makes United States's figure about 3.2 times China's.
Across all 36 years both countries report, United States has been ahead every year.
China ranks 4th and United States ranks 1st of 188 countries.
United States has averaged higher in every one of the 4 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | China | United States | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 329.90 million | 6.83 billion | 6.50 billion | United States |
| 2000s | 338.86 million | 7.01 billion | 6.67 billion | United States |
| 2010s | 10.26 billion | 51.86 billion | 41.60 billion | United States |
| 2020s | 35.71 billion | 119.37 billion | 83.67 billion | United States |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher 11_sdr allocation, China or United States?
- United States, at 152.62 billion against 48.11 billion in China as of 2025.
- What is the difference in 11_sdr allocation between China and United States?
- 104.51 billion, with United States ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for China and United States?
- 36 years are reported by both, from 1990 to 2025.
- How do China and United States rank globally for 11_sdr allocation?
- China ranks 4th and United States ranks 1st 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)).