Burundi vs Grenada: CPIA equity of public resource use rating
Burundi
3.5 1=low to 6=high
in 2025
Grenada
3.5 1=low to 6=high
in 2025
Burundi rank
30th
Grenada rank
30th
CPIA equity of public resource use rating over time
- Burundi
- Grenada
How they compare
Burundi currently reports 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Grenada, a difference of 0 1=low to 6=high.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 21 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Grenada ahead.
Burundi ranks 30th and Grenada ranks 30th of 85 countries.
Across the 3 decades both report, Burundi averaged higher in 2 and Grenada in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Burundi | Grenada | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 0.2 1=low to 6=high | Grenada |
| 2010s | 3.7 1=low to 6=high | 3.3 1=low to 6=high | 0.4 1=low to 6=high | Burundi |
| 2020s | 3.5 1=low to 6=high | 3.25 1=low to 6=high | 0.25 1=low to 6=high | Burundi |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher cpia equity of public resource use rating, Burundi or Grenada?
- Burundi, at 3.5 1=low to 6=high against 3.5 1=low to 6=high in Grenada as of 2025.
- What is the difference in cpia equity of public resource use rating between Burundi and Grenada?
- 0 1=low to 6=high, with Burundi ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Burundi and Grenada?
- 21 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2025.
- How do Burundi and Grenada rank globally for cpia equity of public resource use rating?
- Burundi ranks 30th and Grenada ranks 30th of 85 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- CPIA database, World Bank Group (WBG), published as CPIA equity of public resource use rating (1=low to 6=high). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Equity of public resource use assesses the extent to which the pattern of public expenditures and revenue collection affects the poor and is consistent with national poverty reduction priorities.