Guatemala vs Italy: Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square

Guatemala
0.3965 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Italy
0.4271 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Guatemala rank
45th
Italy rank
43rd

Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square over time

  • Guatemala
  • Italy
00.20.40.60.8196119922023

How they compare

Italy currently reports 0.4271 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.3965 metric tons per square kilometre in Guatemala, a difference of 0.0306 metric tons per square kilometre.

That makes Italy's figure about 1.1 times Guatemala's.

Across all 63 years both countries report, Italy has been ahead every year.

Guatemala ranks 45th and Italy ranks 43rd of 215 countries.

Italy has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Guatemala Italy Difference Ahead
1960s 0 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0433 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0433 metric tons per square kilometre Italy
1970s 0 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1595 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1595 metric tons per square kilometre Italy
1980s 0.0031 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3465 metric tons per square kilometre 0.3433 metric tons per square kilometre Italy
1990s 0.0281 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6327 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6046 metric tons per square kilometre Italy
2000s 0.0983 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6012 metric tons per square kilometre 0.5029 metric tons per square kilometre Italy
2010s 0.2189 metric tons per square kilometre 0.5017 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2828 metric tons per square kilometre Italy
2020s 0.3524 metric tons per square kilometre 0.4467 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0944 metric tons per square kilometre Italy

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square, Guatemala or Italy?
Italy, at 0.4271 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.3965 metric tons per square kilometre in Guatemala as of 2023.
What is the difference in seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square between Guatemala and Italy?
0.0306 metric tons per square kilometre, with Italy ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Italy?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Guatemala and Italy rank globally for seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square?
Guatemala ranks 45th and Italy ranks 43rd of 215 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square kilometre. 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

Guatemala vs Italy: Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 22 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/seafood-production-wild-fish-catch-vs-aquaculture-per-square-kilometre/guatemala/italy/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/seafood-production-wild-fish-catch-vs-aquaculture-per-square-kilometre/guatemala/italy/">Guatemala vs Italy: Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture, per square kilometre
Unit
metric tons per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
215 places, 12,245 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Seafood production: wild fish catch vs. aquaculture divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.