Chickasaw vs Comanche Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Comanche
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Comanche
10.8%
FAMILY POVERTY
0.2/ 100
METRIC RATING
256th/ 347
METRIC RANK
11.0%
FAMILY POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
267th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Comanche Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,601,652 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.000 and weighted average of 10.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 109,722,823 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Comanche and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.506 and weighted average of 11.0%, a difference of 1.9%.

Family Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chickasaw | Comanche |
Minimum | 3.7% | 4.3% |
Maximum | 33.3% | 50.0% |
Range | 29.7% | 45.7% |
Mean | 12.7% | 14.5% |
Median | 12.0% | 13.1% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 9.8% | 10.2% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 14.5% | 15.7% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.7% | 5.5% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.3% | 8.6% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.2% | 8.4% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Comanche by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Immigrants from Ghana (10.8%, a difference of 0.040%), Subsaharan African (10.9%, a difference of 0.070%), Mexican American Indian (10.9%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Liberia (10.8%, a difference of 0.26%), and Bangladeshi (10.9%, a difference of 0.46%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Comanche are Immigrants from El Salvador (11.0%, a difference of 0.010%), Jamaican (11.1%, a difference of 0.10%), Immigrants from Ecuador (11.1%, a difference of 0.58%), Immigrants from Nicaragua (11.1%, a difference of 0.59%), and Immigrants from Bahamas (11.1%, a difference of 0.84%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
Iroquois | 0.3 /100 | #251 | Tragic 10.7% |
Immigrants | Zaire | 0.3 /100 | #252 | Tragic 10.7% |
Immigrants | Western Africa | 0.3 /100 | #253 | Tragic 10.7% |
Ecuadorians | 0.2 /100 | #254 | Tragic 10.8% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.2 /100 | #255 | Tragic 10.8% |
Chickasaw | 0.2 /100 | #256 | Tragic 10.8% |
Immigrants | Ghana | 0.2 /100 | #257 | Tragic 10.8% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.2 /100 | #258 | Tragic 10.9% |
Mexican American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #259 | Tragic 10.9% |
Bangladeshis | 0.2 /100 | #260 | Tragic 10.9% |
Shoshone | 0.2 /100 | #261 | Tragic 10.9% |
Spanish American Indians | 0.2 /100 | #262 | Tragic 10.9% |
Cape Verdeans | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 10.9% |
Trinidadians and Tobagonians | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 10.9% |
Immigrants | Trinidad and Tobago | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 10.9% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 11.0% |
Comanche | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 11.0% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 11.1% |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 11.1% |
Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 11.1% |
Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.1 /100 | #271 | Tragic 11.1% |