Burkina Faso vs Sri Lanka: Malnutrition: Share of children who are wasted
Burkina Faso
9.3%
in 2021
Sri Lanka
9.3%
in 2024
Burkina Faso rank
13th
Sri Lanka rank
13th
Malnutrition: Share of children who are wasted over time
- Burkina Faso
- Sri Lanka
How they compare
Burkina Faso currently reports 9.3% against 9.3% in Sri Lanka, a difference of 0.0%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 7 shared years of data; in 1993 it was Burkina Faso ahead.
Burkina Faso ranks 13th and Sri Lanka ranks 13th of 99 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, Burkina Faso averaged higher in 2 and Sri Lanka in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Burkina Faso | Sri Lanka | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 15.4% | 15.2% | 0.2% | Burkina Faso |
| 2000s | 11.3% | 11.8% | 0.5% | Sri Lanka |
| 2010s | 8.8% | 15.4% | 6.7% | Sri Lanka |
| 2020s | 9.1% | 8.4% | 0.7% | Burkina Faso |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher malnutrition: share of children who are wasted, Burkina Faso or Sri Lanka?
- Burkina Faso, at 9.3% against 9.3% in Sri Lanka as of 2021.
- What is the difference in malnutrition: share of children who are wasted between Burkina Faso and Sri Lanka?
- 0.0%, with Burkina Faso ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Burkina Faso and Sri Lanka?
- 7 years are reported by both, from 1993 to 2021.
- How do Burkina Faso and Sri Lanka rank globally for malnutrition: share of children who are wasted?
- Burkina Faso ranks 13th and Sri Lanka ranks 13th of 99 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Joint child Malnutrition Estimates (JME) - UNICEF, WHO, and World Bank (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Malnutrition: Share of children who are wasted. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The share of children younger than five years old that are defined as "wasted". Wasting is when a child’s weight is significantly lower than the average for their height, for example, because of acute food shortage or disease.