Luxembourger vs Bhutanese Female Poverty
COMPARE
Luxembourger
Bhutanese
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Luxembourgers
Bhutanese
11.6%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
24th/ 347
METRIC RANK
11.3%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
12th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Luxembourger vs Bhutanese Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 144,645,818 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Luxembourgers and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.074 and weighted average of 11.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 455,052,143 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Bhutanese and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.207 and weighted average of 11.3%, a difference of 2.9%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Luxembourger | Bhutanese |
| Minimum | 1.8% | 2.5% |
| Maximum | 19.8% | 66.7% |
| Range | 18.1% | 64.2% |
| Mean | 7.9% | 11.1% |
| Median | 7.7% | 9.4% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.5% | 7.2% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.5% | 12.7% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.0% | 5.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.8% | 8.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.7% | 8.5% |
Demographics Similar to Luxembourgers and Bhutanese by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Luxembourgers are Burmese (11.6%, a difference of 0.020%), Swedish (11.6%, a difference of 0.16%), Italian (11.6%, a difference of 0.19%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (11.6%, a difference of 0.26%), and Croatian (11.6%, a difference of 0.27%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Bhutanese are Immigrants from Lithuania (11.3%, a difference of 0.010%), Maltese (11.2%, a difference of 0.46%), Immigrants from Hong Kong (11.2%, a difference of 0.57%), Lithuanian (11.4%, a difference of 0.97%), and Latvian (11.4%, a difference of 1.3%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.9 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 11.1% |
| Bulgarians | 99.9 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 11.1% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.9 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 11.2% |
| Maltese | 99.9 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 11.2% |
| Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 11.3% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 11.3% |
| Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Latvians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Bolivians | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Immigrants | Scotland | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Norwegians | 99.8 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Italians | 99.7 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Burmese | 99.7 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Luxembourgers | 99.7 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.6 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Croatians | 99.6 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 11.6% |
| Iranians | 99.6 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 11.7% |
| Immigrants | Korea | 99.6 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 11.7% |