Ecuador vs Hungary: Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines

Ecuador
220.32 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Hungary
222.65 kilograms per year per capita
in 2023
Ecuador rank
101st
Hungary rank
99th

Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines over time

  • Ecuador
  • Hungary
200400600800196119922023

How they compare

Hungary currently reports 222.65 kilograms per year per capita against 220.32 kilograms per year per capita in Ecuador, a difference of 2.33 kilograms per year per capita.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Ecuador ahead.

Ecuador ranks 101st and Hungary ranks 99th of 192 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 6 and Hungary in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Hungary Difference Ahead
1960s 715.26 kilograms per year per capita 161.61 kilograms per year per capita 553.65 kilograms per year per capita Ecuador
1970s 674.22 kilograms per year per capita 182.07 kilograms per year per capita 492.15 kilograms per year per capita Ecuador
1980s 584.69 kilograms per year per capita 181.51 kilograms per year per capita 403.17 kilograms per year per capita Ecuador
1990s 517.17 kilograms per year per capita 177.85 kilograms per year per capita 339.31 kilograms per year per capita Ecuador
2000s 442.84 kilograms per year per capita 204.32 kilograms per year per capita 238.51 kilograms per year per capita Ecuador
2010s 231.82 kilograms per year per capita 191.1 kilograms per year per capita 40.72 kilograms per year per capita Ecuador
2020s 177.59 kilograms per year per capita 225.9 kilograms per year per capita 48.31 kilograms per year per capita Hungary

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines, Ecuador or Hungary?
Hungary, at 222.65 kilograms per year per capita against 220.32 kilograms per year per capita in Ecuador as of 2023.
What is the difference in average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines between Ecuador and Hungary?
2.33 kilograms per year per capita, with Hungary ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Hungary?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Ecuador and Hungary rank globally for average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines?
Ecuador ranks 101st and Hungary ranks 99th of 192 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Ecuador vs Hungary: Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines. Statizoid, drawing on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/average-per-capita-fruit-intake-vs-minimum-recommended-guidelines/ecuador/hungary/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/average-per-capita-fruit-intake-vs-minimum-recommended-guidelines/ecuador/hungary/">Ecuador vs Hungary: Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Average per capita fruit intake vs. minimum recommended guidelines
Unit
kilograms per year per capita
Source
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2025) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
192 places, 10,214 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Quantity that is available for consumption at the end of the supply chain. It does not account for consumer waste, so the quantity that is actually consumed may be lower.