Croatia vs Serbia: 11_SDR allocation

Croatia
1.38 billion
in 2025
Serbia
1.43 billion
in 2025
Croatia rank
67th
Serbia rank
65th

11_SDR allocation over time

  • Croatia
  • Serbia
0500.0M1.0B1.5B199020072025

How they compare

Serbia currently reports 1.43 billion against 1.38 billion in Croatia, a difference of 50.08 million.

Across all 20 years both countries report, Serbia has been ahead every year.

Croatia ranks 67th and Serbia ranks 65th of 188 countries.

Serbia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Croatia Serbia Difference Ahead
2000s 67.31 million 86.28 million 18.97 million Serbia
2010s 510.07 million 653.53 million 143.46 million Serbia
2020s 1.09 billion 1.17 billion 79.10 million Serbia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher 11_sdr allocation, Croatia or Serbia?
Serbia, at 1.43 billion against 1.38 billion in Croatia as of 2025.
What is the difference in 11_sdr allocation between Croatia and Serbia?
50.08 million, with Serbia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Croatia and Serbia?
20 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2025.
How do Croatia and Serbia rank globally for 11_sdr allocation?
Croatia ranks 67th and Serbia ranks 65th 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

Indicator
11_SDR allocation
Source
IMF
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
189 places, 6,685 data points, 1990–2025
Last refreshed

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)).