Ecuador vs Laos: Malnutrition: Number of children who are stunted

Ecuador
243,500
in 2024
Laos
236,300
in 2024
Ecuador rank
66th
Laos rank
67th

Malnutrition: Number of children who are stunted over time

  • Ecuador
  • Laos
0100.0k200.0k300.0k400.0k500.0k200020122024

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 243,500 against 236,300 in Laos, a difference of 7,200.

Across all 25 years both countries report, Ecuador has been ahead every year.

Ecuador ranks 66th and Laos ranks 67th of 162 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Laos Difference Ahead
2000s 441,940 378,540 63,400 Ecuador
2010s 351,040 295,140 55,900 Ecuador
2020s 258,680 244,300 14,380 Ecuador

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher malnutrition: number of children who are stunted, Ecuador or Laos?
Ecuador, at 243,500 against 236,300 in Laos as of 2024.
What is the difference in malnutrition: number of children who are stunted between Ecuador and Laos?
7,200, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Laos?
25 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2024.
How do Ecuador and Laos rank globally for malnutrition: number of children who are stunted?
Ecuador ranks 66th and Laos ranks 67th of 162 countries.
Where does this data come from?
World Health Organization - Global Health Observatory (2026) – with minor processing by Our World in Data, published as Malnutrition: Number of children who are stunted. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Malnutrition: Number of children who are stunted
Source
World Health Organization - Global Health Observatory (2026) – with minor processing by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
162 places, 4,050 data points, 2000–2024
Last refreshed

The number of children younger than five who are stunted – significantly shorter than the average for their age, as a consequence of poor nutrition or repeated infection.