Lesotho has a population density of 203.8 people per square mile compared to 806 people in Tuvalu. Lesotho has 139,786 sq ft of land per person vs 28,054 sq ft in Tuvalu. Lesotho and Tuvalu rank 115th and 32nd by population density, respectively.
Population density is calculated as the ratio of population to land area. Lesotho has 0.03% of the world's population and 0.02% of all countries' land area, compared to 0.0001% of the population and 0.00002% of the land area for Tuvalu, making the population density in Lesotho 74.7% lower than in Tuvalu.
Population density by year
people per square mile
| Year | Population density | |
|---|---|---|
Lesotho
|
Tuvalu
|
|
| 2026 | 203.8 | 806 |
| 2025 | 201.6 | 819 |
| 2024 | 199.4 | 833 |
| 2023 | 197.2 | 847 |
| 2022 | 195 | 863 |
| 2021 | 192.9 | 880 |
| 2020 | 190.7 | 898 |
| 2019 | 188.5 | 913 |
| 2018 | 186.3 | 928 |
| 2017 | 184 | 938 |
| 2016 | 181.7 | 944 |
| 2015 | 179.5 | 946 |
| 2014 | 177.5 | 948 |
| 2013 | 175.4 | 950 |
| 2012 | 173.5 | 944 |
| 2011 | 171.8 | 931 |
| 2010 | 170.3 | 916 |
| 2009 | 169 | 903 |
| 2008 | 167.8 | 891 |
| 2007 | 166.6 | 879 |
| 2006 | 165.9 | 868 |
| 2005 | 166.6 | 858 |
| 2004 | 168.2 | 847 |
| 2003 | 169.3 | 837 |
| 2002 | 170.2 | 831 |
| 2001 | 170.7 | 828 |
| 2000 | 171 | 824 |
| 1999 | 170.9 | 820 |
| 1998 | 170.5 | 816 |
| 1997 | 169.6 | 812 |
| 1996 | 168.3 | 807 |
| 1995 | 166.5 | 801 |
| 1994 | 164.5 | 795 |
| 1993 | 162.2 | 788 |
| 1992 | 159.8 | 780 |
| 1991 | 157.2 | 771 |
| 1990 | 154.4 | 760 |
| 1989 | 151.5 | 748 |
| 1988 | 148.4 | 735 |
| 1987 | 145.3 | 723 |
| 1986 | 142.1 | 709 |
| 1985 | 138.6 | 695 |
| 1984 | 134.7 | 682 |
| 1983 | 130.9 | 672 |
| 1982 | 127.2 | 662 |
| 1981 | 123.5 | 650 |
| 1980 | 120 | 636 |
| 1979 | 116.5 | 620 |
| 1978 | 113.2 | 601 |
| 1977 | 110 | 577 |
| 1976 | 106.9 | 553 |
| 1975 | 103.5 | 528 |
| 1974 | 100 | 503 |
| 1973 | 96.6 | 490 |
| 1972 | 93.3 | 491 |
| 1971 | 90.1 | 491 |
| 1970 | 87 | 489 |
| 1969 | 83.9 | 486 |
| 1968 | 80.9 | 486 |
| 1967 | 78 | 488 |
| 1966 | 75.2 | 491 |
| 1965 | 72.9 | 493 |
| 1964 | 70.8 | 497 |
| 1963 | 68.7 | 497 |
| 1962 | 66.7 | 492 |
| 1961 | 64.7 | 488 |
Data sources: World Bank | Agriculture & Rural Development (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-04-06); United Nations | World Population Prospects (2025–2026, retrieved 2026-03-10).
GeoRank.org/population-density/lesotho/tuvalu | CC BY 
From 2006 to 2026, population density in Lesotho increased by 22.9%, compared to a 7.1% decline in Tuvalu.
In 2006, Lesotho ranked 113th by population density and is 115th now. Tuvalu was 21st in 2006 and ranks 32nd out of 197 currently.
Population density comparison
|
Lesotho
|
Tuvalu
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Population density | 203.8 ppl/mi² | 806 ppl/mi² |
| Population density rank | 115/197 | 32/197 |
| Population |
2396633
|
9341
|
| Land area | 11,722 sq mi | 11.6 sq mi |
| Land area per capita | 139,809 sq ft | 33,477 sq ft |
| Rural population | 56.3% | 35.3% |
| Urban population | 43.7% | 64.7% |
| Living in agglomerations of 1M+ people | 0% | 0% |
Share of urban population by year
| Year | Urban population | |
|---|---|---|
|
Lesotho
|
Tuvalu
|
|
| 2024 | 43.7% | 64.7% |
| 2023 | 42.7% | 64% |
| 2022 | 41.7% | 63.3% |
| 2021 | 40.7% | 62.6% |
| 2020 | 39.6% | 61.9% |
| 2019 | 38.6% | 61.2% |
| 2018 | 37.6% | 60.6% |
| 2017 | 36.5% | 60% |
| 2016 | 35.5% | 59.5% |
| 2015 | 34.1% | 58.9% |
| 2014 | 32.6% | 58.3% |
| 2013 | 31.2% | 57.6% |
| 2012 | 29.9% | 56.9% |
| 2011 | 28.6% | 56% |
| 2010 | 27.4% | 55% |
| 2009 | 26.3% | 54% |
| 2008 | 25.2% | 52.8% |
| 2007 | 24.2% | 51.7% |
| 2006 | 23.3% | 50.5% |
| 2005 | 22.5% | 49.4% |
| 2004 | 21.8% | 48.4% |
| 2003 | 21.1% | 47.5% |
| 2002 | 20.5% | 46.7% |
| 2001 | 19.9% | 46.1% |
| 2000 | 19.3% | 45.5% |
| 1999 | 18.8% | 45% |
| 1998 | 18.2% | 44.5% |
| 1997 | 17.7% | 44% |
| 1996 | 17.1% | 43.5% |
| 1995 | 16.5% | 43.1% |
| 1994 | 15.8% | 42.5% |
| 1993 | 15% | 42% |
| 1992 | 14.3% | 41.3% |
| 1991 | 13.6% | 40.6% |
| 1990 | 12.9% | 39.7% |
| 1989 | 12.3% | 38.6% |
| 1988 | 11.8% | 37.5% |
| 1987 | 11.5% | 36.4% |
| 1986 | 11.3% | 35.2% |
| 1985 | 11.3% | 34.2% |
| 1984 | 11.3% | 33.3% |
| 1983 | 11.3% | 32.6% |
| 1982 | 11.2% | 31.9% |
| 1981 | 11.2% | 31.1% |
| 1980 | 11.2% | 30.2% |
| 1979 | 11.2% | 29% |
| 1978 | 11.2% | 27.1% |
| 1977 | 11.2% | 24% |
| 1976 | 11.2% | 20.5% |
| 1975 | 11.1% | 17.3% |
| 1974 | 10.9% | 15.2% |
| 1973 | 10.6% | 14.7% |
| 1972 | 10.2% | 14.6% |
| 1971 | 9.75% | 14.5% |
| 1970 | 9.22% | 14.5% |
| 1969 | 8.68% | 14.4% |
| 1968 | 8.12% | 14.2% |
| 1967 | 7.59% | 13.9% |
| 1966 | 7.1% | 13.5% |
| 1965 | 6.62% | 13.1% |
| 1964 | 6.07% | 12.8% |
| 1963 | 5.47% | 12.6% |
| 1962 | 4.86% | 12.5% |
| 1961 | 4.24% | 12.4% |
| 1960 | 3.66% | 12.4% |
Data sources: World Bank | Health (1960–2024, retrieved 2026-04-06).
GeoRank.org/population-density/lesotho/tuvalu | CC BY
From 2004 to 2024, the share of urban population changed from 21.8% to 43.7% in Lesotho and from 48.4% to 64.7% in Tuvalu.
Densely populated cities
|
Lesotho
|
|
|---|---|
| City | Population |
| Maseru | 344K |
| Teyateyaneng | 75.1K |
| Mafeteng | 57.1K |
Compare countries by 7 more topics
Population density in other countries
Data sources: World Bank | Agriculture & Rural Development (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-04-06); United Nations | World Population Prospects (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-03-10); U.S. Census Bureau (1961–2025, retrieved 2026-02-08); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2000–2019, retrieved 2026-02-20).
GeoRank.org/population-density/lesotho/tuvalu | CC BY
Help us show the world through your eyes
Share a photo of your city and help others discover what it looks like to live there. Your contribution makes our data come alive.
Data sources:
- World Bank | Agriculture & Rural Development (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-04-06)
- United Nations | World Population Prospects (1961–2026, retrieved 2026-03-10)
- U.S. Census Bureau (1961–2025, retrieved 2026-02-08)
- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2000–2019, retrieved 2026-02-20)
- Wikidata (2005–2024, retrieved 2026-02-08)
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) — you’re free to copy, share, remix, adapt, and use even commercially as long as you give appropriate credit and clearly indicate if you made changes. Other sources may be subject to different license terms.