Nepal vs Oman: Sanitation facilities usage in rural areas, annual growth rate
Nepal
-100 % change on previous year
in 2024
Oman
-100 % change on previous year
in 2014
Nepal rank
105th
Oman rank
105th
Sanitation facilities usage in rural areas, annual growth rate over time
- Nepal
- Oman
How they compare
Nepal currently reports -100 % change on previous year against -100 % change on previous year in Oman, a difference of 0 % change on previous year.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 13 shared years of data; in 2002 it was Oman ahead.
Nepal ranks 105th and Oman ranks 105th of 136 countries.
Nepal has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Nepal | Oman | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | -4.54 % change on previous year | -6.74 % change on previous year | 2.19 % change on previous year | Nepal |
| 2010s | -7.86 % change on previous year | -47.25 % change on previous year | 39.39 % change on previous year | Nepal |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher sanitation facilities usage in rural areas, annual growth rate, Nepal or Oman?
- Nepal, at -100 % change on previous year against -100 % change on previous year in Oman as of 2024.
- What is the difference in sanitation facilities usage in rural areas, annual growth rate between Nepal and Oman?
- 0 % change on previous year, with Nepal ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Nepal and Oman?
- 13 years are reported by both, from 2002 to 2014.
- How do Nepal and Oman rank globally for sanitation facilities usage in rural areas, annual growth rate?
- Nepal ranks 105th and Oman ranks 105th of 136 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Sanitation facilities usage in rural areas, annual growth rate. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The year-on-year percentage change in Sanitation facilities usage in rural areas. Computed from consecutive annual observations; years either side of a gap are skipped rather than bridged.