Hungarian vs Salvadoran No Vehicles in Household
COMPARE
Hungarian
Salvadoran
No Vehicles in Household
No Vehicles in Household Comparison
Hungarians
Salvadorans
9.9%
NO VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD
80.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
146th/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.1%
NO VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD
72.4/ 100
METRIC RATING
155th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Hungarian vs Salvadoran No Vehicles in Household Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 483,786,573 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Hungarians and percentage of households with no vehicle available in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.474 and weighted average of 9.9%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 397,977,733 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Salvadorans and percentage of households with no vehicle available in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.022 and weighted average of 10.1%, a difference of 1.5%.
No Vehicles in Household Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Hungarian | Salvadoran |
| Minimum | 0.88% | 1.3% |
| Maximum | 62.3% | 25.9% |
| Range | 61.5% | 24.7% |
| Mean | 14.3% | 9.9% |
| Median | 8.5% | 8.9% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.5% | 7.1% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 18.2% | 12.2% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 12.8% | 5.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 13.4% | 4.8% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 13.2% | 4.8% |
Demographics Similar to Hungarians and Salvadorans by No Vehicles in Household
In terms of no vehicles in household, the demographic groups most similar to Hungarians are Immigrants from Nicaragua (9.9%, a difference of 0.060%), Immigrants from Bosnia and Herzegovina (9.9%, a difference of 0.20%), Bahamian (9.9%, a difference of 0.23%), Chilean (9.9%, a difference of 0.26%), and Immigrants from Bahamas (9.9%, a difference of 0.26%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Salvadorans are Sioux (10.1%, a difference of 0.010%), Tlingit-Haida (10.1%, a difference of 0.030%), Immigrants from Congo (10.1%, a difference of 0.12%), Immigrants from Micronesia (10.1%, a difference of 0.25%), and Immigrants from Eastern Africa (10.0%, a difference of 0.26%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | No Vehicles in Household |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 84.0 /100 | #140 | Excellent 9.8% |
| Sudanese | 83.1 /100 | #141 | Excellent 9.8% |
| Immigrants | Zimbabwe | 82.6 /100 | #142 | Excellent 9.9% |
| Chileans | 81.2 /100 | #143 | Excellent 9.9% |
| Immigrants | Bahamas | 81.2 /100 | #144 | Excellent 9.9% |
| Bahamians | 81.0 /100 | #145 | Excellent 9.9% |
| Hungarians | 80.0 /100 | #146 | Excellent 9.9% |
| Immigrants | Nicaragua | 79.8 /100 | #147 | Good 9.9% |
| Immigrants | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 79.1 /100 | #148 | Good 9.9% |
| Immigrants | Uganda | 76.1 /100 | #149 | Good 10.0% |
| Colombians | 73.9 /100 | #150 | Good 10.0% |
| Immigrants | Eastern Africa | 73.8 /100 | #151 | Good 10.0% |
| Immigrants | Congo | 73.0 /100 | #152 | Good 10.1% |
| Tlingit-Haida | 72.5 /100 | #153 | Good 10.1% |
| Sioux | 72.4 /100 | #154 | Good 10.1% |
| Salvadorans | 72.4 /100 | #155 | Good 10.1% |
| Immigrants | Micronesia | 70.9 /100 | #156 | Good 10.1% |
| Australians | 70.6 /100 | #157 | Good 10.1% |
| Spanish American Indians | 70.2 /100 | #158 | Good 10.1% |
| Immigrants | Indonesia | 69.3 /100 | #159 | Good 10.1% |
| Immigrants | Middle Africa | 65.7 /100 | #160 | Good 10.2% |