Armenia vs Kyrgyzstan: Imports of goods and services, US dollar (Balance of Payments and)

Armenia
16.30 billion
in 2030
Kyrgyzstan
20.98 billion
in 2030
Armenia rank
23rd
Kyrgyzstan rank
20th

Imports of goods and services, US dollar (Balance of Payments and) over time

  • Armenia
  • Kyrgyzstan
05.0B10.0B15.0B20.0B200020152030

How they compare

Kyrgyzstan currently reports 20.98 billion against 16.30 billion in Armenia, a difference of 4.67 billion.

That makes Kyrgyzstan's figure about 1.3 times Armenia's.

The two have swapped places 5 times across 31 shared years of data; in 2000 it was Armenia ahead.

Armenia ranks 23rd and Kyrgyzstan ranks 20th of 31 countries.

Across the 4 decades both report, Armenia averaged higher in 1 and Kyrgyzstan in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade Armenia Kyrgyzstan Difference Ahead
2000s 2.44 billion 1.92 billion 517.72 million Armenia
2010s 5.44 billion 5.48 billion 40.88 million Kyrgyzstan
2020s 12.97 billion 14.16 billion 1.19 billion Kyrgyzstan
2030s 16.30 billion 20.98 billion 4.67 billion Kyrgyzstan

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher imports of goods and services, us dollar (balance of payments and), Armenia or Kyrgyzstan?
Kyrgyzstan, at 20.98 billion against 16.30 billion in Armenia as of 2030.
What is the difference in imports of goods and services, us dollar (balance of payments and) between Armenia and Kyrgyzstan?
4.67 billion, with Kyrgyzstan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Armenia and Kyrgyzstan?
31 years are reported by both, from 2000 to 2030.
How do Armenia and Kyrgyzstan rank globally for imports of goods and services, us dollar (balance of payments and)?
Armenia ranks 23rd and Kyrgyzstan ranks 20th of 31 countries.
Where does this data come from?
International Monetary Fund, published as Imports of goods and services, US dollar (Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual, Sixth Edition (BPM6)). 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

Armenia vs Kyrgyzstan: Imports of goods and services, US dollar (Balance of Payments and). Statizoid, drawing on International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 19 September 2026, from https://trade.statizoid.com/compare/imports-of-goods-and-services-us-dollar-balance-of-payments-and-international-investment/armenia/kyrgyz-republic/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under IMF Terms and Conditions (attribution required); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://trade.statizoid.com/compare/imports-of-goods-and-services-us-dollar-balance-of-payments-and-international-investment/armenia/kyrgyz-republic/">Armenia vs Kyrgyzstan: Imports of goods and services, US dollar (Balance of Payments and)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Imports of goods and services, US dollar (Balance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual, Sixth Edition (BPM6))
Source
International Monetary Fund
Licence
IMF Terms and Conditions (attribution required)
Coverage
44 places, 1,284 data points, 2000–2030
Last refreshed

The Middle East and Central Asia Department Regional Economic Outlook (MCDREO) provides information on recent economic developments and prospects for 32 countries and territories: Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, West Bank and Gaza, and Yemen. These countries and territories are divided into two main nonoverlapping groups, based on export earnings, namely (1) oil exporters; and (2) oil importers. The oil importers group comprises (1) emerging market and middle-income countries (EM&MI) and (2) low-income countries (LICs) based on the income level. Additional analytical and regional groups might be used to provide a more granular breakdown for analysis and continuity.