South African vs Hungarian No Vehicles in Household
COMPARE
South African
Hungarian
No Vehicles in Household
No Vehicles in Household Comparison
South Africans
Hungarians
10.2%
NO VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD
61.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
164th/ 347
METRIC RANK
9.9%
NO VEHICLES IN HOUSEHOLD
80.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
146th/ 347
METRIC RANK
South African vs Hungarian No Vehicles in Household Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 182,340,903 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of South Africans and percentage of households with no vehicle available in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.777 and weighted average of 10.2%. Similarly, 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%, a difference of 3.3%.
No Vehicles in Household Correlation Summary
| Measurement | South African | Hungarian |
| Minimum | 1.5% | 0.88% |
| Maximum | 100.0% | 62.3% |
| Range | 98.5% | 61.5% |
| Mean | 10.5% | 14.3% |
| Median | 6.2% | 8.5% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.1% | 5.5% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 7.6% | 18.2% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.5% | 12.8% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 20.1% | 13.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 19.6% | 13.2% |
Demographics Similar to South Africans and Hungarians by No Vehicles in Household
In terms of no vehicles in household, the demographic groups most similar to South Africans are Comanche (10.2%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Cambodia (10.2%, a difference of 0.37%), Immigrants from Austria (10.2%, a difference of 0.48%), New Zealander (10.2%, a difference of 0.58%), and Immigrants from Middle Africa (10.2%, a difference of 0.68%). Similarly, 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%), Immigrants from Uganda (10.0%, a difference of 0.82%), and Colombian (10.0%, a difference of 1.2%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | No Vehicles in Household |
| 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% |
| New Zealanders | 65.1 /100 | #161 | Good 10.2% |
| Immigrants | Austria | 64.4 /100 | #162 | Good 10.2% |
| Immigrants | Cambodia | 63.7 /100 | #163 | Good 10.2% |
| South Africans | 61.1 /100 | #164 | Good 10.2% |
| Comanche | 60.8 /100 | #165 | Good 10.2% |