Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Community Comparison

COMPARE

Ecuadorian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAmericanApacheArabArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYup'ik
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Zimbabwean
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Ecuadorians

Zimbabweans

Poor
Exceptional
2,199
SOCIAL INDEX
19.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
267th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,358
SOCIAL INDEX
91.0/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
18th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Zimbabwean Integration in Ecuadorian Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 62,564,218 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Zimbabweans within Ecuadorian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.023. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Ecuadorians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.001% in Zimbabweans. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Ecuadorians corresponds to an increase of 0.5 Zimbabweans.
Ecuadorian Integration in Zimbabwean Communities

Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($54,958 compared to $65,854, a difference of 19.8%), median family income ($95,114 compared to $110,011, a difference of 15.7%), and wage/income gap (22.9% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 14.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($39,117 compared to $40,798, a difference of 4.3%), householder income under 25 years ($53,911 compared to $51,259, a difference of 5.2%), and median earnings ($45,214 compared to $48,229, a difference of 6.7%).
Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Income
Income MetricEcuadorianZimbabwean
Per Capita Income
Poor
$41,958
Exceptional
$45,804
Median Family Income
Tragic
$95,114
Exceptional
$110,011
Median Household Income
Poor
$82,070
Exceptional
$90,618
Median Earnings
Poor
$45,214
Exceptional
$48,229
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$51,596
Excellent
$56,302
Median Female Earnings
Fair
$39,117
Exceptional
$40,798
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$53,911
Tragic
$51,259
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Poor
$91,574
Exceptional
$98,586
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$93,739
Exceptional
$106,849
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$54,958
Exceptional
$65,854
Wage/Income Gap
Exceptional
22.9%
Fair
26.3%

Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (6.5% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 59.5%), receiving food stamps (14.9% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 56.9%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (14.0% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 45.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (12.5% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 4.8%), single father poverty (16.5% compared to 15.6%, a difference of 5.9%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.1% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 6.8%).
Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Poverty
Poverty MetricEcuadorianZimbabwean
Poverty
Tragic
14.0%
Exceptional
11.3%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Exceptional
7.8%
Males
Tragic
12.7%
Exceptional
10.2%
Females
Tragic
15.3%
Exceptional
12.3%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
19.1%
Fair
20.4%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
14.3%
Exceptional
11.7%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
19.2%
Exceptional
15.2%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.0%
Exceptional
14.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.3%
Exceptional
14.3%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
18.8%
Exceptional
14.4%
Single Males
Excellent
12.5%
Poor
13.1%
Single Females
Poor
21.6%
Exceptional
19.5%
Single Fathers
Fair
16.5%
Exceptional
15.6%
Single Mothers
Tragic
30.8%
Exceptional
27.9%
Married Couples
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
4.1%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
14.0%
Exceptional
9.6%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
15.7%
Exceptional
11.2%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
14.9%
Exceptional
9.5%

Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.6% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 33.2%), unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (20.5% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 33.0%), and female unemployment (6.3% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 30.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.6% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 0.74%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 1.5%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.8% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 2.1%).
Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Unemployment
Unemployment MetricEcuadorianZimbabwean
Unemployment
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
4.8%
Males
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.8%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.3%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
20.5%
Exceptional
15.4%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
11.8%
Exceptional
9.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.4%
Exceptional
6.4%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.8%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.4%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
5.3%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.6%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
5.8%
Tragic
5.9%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
5.6%
Tragic
5.6%
Seniors > 75
Good
8.6%
Average
8.7%
Women w/ Children < 6
Poor
7.9%
Exceptional
7.3%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
10.0%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
5.1%

Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.4% compared to 38.7%, a difference of 23.3%), in labor force | age 20-24 (72.4% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 4.4%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.6% compared to 67.3%, a difference of 2.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (84.4% compared to 84.5%, a difference of 0.15%), in labor force | age 30-34 (84.4% compared to 85.6%, a difference of 1.5%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (79.4% compared to 81.0%, a difference of 2.0%).
Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricEcuadorianZimbabwean
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
65.6%
Exceptional
67.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Fair
79.4%
Exceptional
81.0%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
31.4%
Exceptional
38.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
72.4%
Excellent
75.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Poor
84.4%
Fair
84.5%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Poor
84.4%
Exceptional
85.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Fair
84.2%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
82.3%
Exceptional
84.0%

Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.2% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 18.7%), births to unmarried women (33.3% compared to 28.7%, a difference of 16.0%), and married-couple households (43.5% compared to 47.4%, a difference of 8.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.8% compared to 27.9%, a difference of 0.43%), family households (65.0% compared to 64.1%, a difference of 1.4%), and divorced or separated (11.7% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 1.5%).
Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Family Structure
Family Structure MetricEcuadorianZimbabwean
Family Households
Exceptional
65.0%
Fair
64.1%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
27.8%
Exceptional
27.9%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
43.5%
Excellent
47.4%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.32
Poor
3.20
Single Father Households
Fair
2.4%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.2%
Excellent
6.1%
Currently Married
Tragic
43.6%
Good
47.0%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.7%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Poor
33.3%
Exceptional
28.7%

Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (22.8% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 151.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (4.5% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 44.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 20.3%, a difference of 44.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (77.9% compared to 91.0%, a difference of 16.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (42.0% compared to 57.2%, a difference of 36.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 20.3%, a difference of 44.2%).
Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricEcuadorianZimbabwean
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
22.8%
Exceptional
9.0%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
77.9%
Exceptional
91.0%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
42.0%
Exceptional
57.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
14.1%
Excellent
20.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
4.5%
Good
6.4%

Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.0% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 71.0%), doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 55.7%), and professional degree (3.9% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 32.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.1% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 1.3%), kindergarten (97.0% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 1.3%), and 1st grade (97.0% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 1.3%).
Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Education Level
Education Level MetricEcuadorianZimbabwean
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
3.0%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Tragic
97.1%
Exceptional
98.3%
Kindergarten
Tragic
97.0%
Exceptional
98.3%
1st Grade
Tragic
97.0%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Tragic
96.9%
Exceptional
98.2%
3rd Grade
Tragic
96.7%
Exceptional
98.1%
4th Grade
Tragic
96.4%
Exceptional
97.9%
5th Grade
Tragic
96.0%
Exceptional
97.8%
6th Grade
Tragic
95.5%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Tragic
94.0%
Exceptional
96.8%
8th Grade
Tragic
93.6%
Exceptional
96.5%
9th Grade
Tragic
91.9%
Exceptional
95.9%
10th Grade
Tragic
90.6%
Exceptional
94.9%
11th Grade
Tragic
89.6%
Exceptional
93.9%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
88.0%
Exceptional
92.7%
High School Diploma
Tragic
85.1%
Exceptional
91.1%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
81.7%
Exceptional
88.0%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
59.3%
Exceptional
69.9%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
54.3%
Exceptional
64.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
43.0%
Exceptional
51.3%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
35.4%
Exceptional
43.3%
Master's Degree
Poor
14.0%
Exceptional
17.7%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.9%
Exceptional
5.2%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.3%

Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 18.8%), vision disability (2.3% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 15.7%), and hearing disability (2.5% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 13.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 5 to 17 (5.5% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 0.82%), male disability (10.5% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 1.0%), and disability age over 75 (47.4% compared to 48.1%, a difference of 1.4%).
Ecuadorian vs Zimbabwean Disability
Disability MetricEcuadorianZimbabwean
Disability
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
10.9%
Males
Exceptional
10.5%
Exceptional
10.6%
Females
Exceptional
11.9%
Exceptional
11.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
1.1%
Exceptional
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Good
5.5%
Good
5.5%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
5.8%
Good
6.5%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.7%
Exceptional
10.4%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Fair
23.6%
Exceptional
21.5%
Age | Over 75 years
Average
47.4%
Tragic
48.1%
Vision
Tragic
2.3%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Exceptional
2.5%
Excellent
2.8%
Cognitive
Average
17.2%
Tragic
17.6%
Ambulatory
Good
6.1%
Exceptional
5.4%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.6%
Exceptional
2.2%