Time difference between Sidi Qacem and Tokyo
Tokyo is 9 hours ahead of Sidi Qacem.
Local time in both cities
Sidi Qacem · Morocco
00:48
Tokyo · Japan
09:48
Tokyo is 9 hours ahead of Sidi Qacem.
same day
Time zones
| Sidi Qacem | Africa/Casablanca · UTC+00:00 |
|---|---|
| Tokyo | Asia/Tokyo · UTC+09:00 |
Sidi Qacem does not observe daylight saving and stays on UTC+00:00 all year.
Tokyo does not observe daylight saving and stays on UTC+09:00 all year.
Hour-by-hour conversion
Calculated for 2026-09-21 local time in Sidi Qacem. The two places start and end daylight saving on different dates, so another day can give a different result.
| Sidi Qacem (source) | Tokyo (target) |
|---|---|
| 00:00 | 09:00 |
| 01:00 | 10:00 |
| 02:00 | 11:00 |
| 03:00 | 12:00 |
| 04:00 | 13:00 |
| 05:00 | 14:00 |
| 06:00 | 15:00 |
| 07:00 | 16:00 |
| 08:00 | 17:00 |
| 09:00 | 18:00 |
| 10:00 | 19:00 |
| 11:00 | 20:00 |
| 12:00 | 21:00 |
| 13:00 | 22:00 |
| 14:00 | 23:00 |
| 15:00 | 00:00 next day |
| 16:00 | 01:00 next day |
| 17:00 | 02:00 next day |
| 18:00 | 03:00 next day |
| 19:00 | 04:00 next day |
| 20:00 | 05:00 next day |
| 21:00 | 06:00 next day |
| 22:00 | 07:00 next day |
| 23:00 | 08:00 next day |
Other common differences from Sidi Qacem
FAQ
- How many hours apart are Sidi Qacem and Tokyo right now?
- The answer at the top of the page is calculated for the current moment and states which side is ahead. The gap changes during the year, because the two places usually start and end daylight saving on different dates.
- Is this difference the same all year?
- Not necessarily. Sidi Qacem uses Africa/Casablanca and Tokyo uses Asia/Tokyo; if either observes daylight saving, the gap shifts during the year. Use “Convert a specific date and time” below to calculate it for a given day.
- How do I read the conversion table?
- The left column lists each whole hour in Sidi Qacem; the right column is the local time in Tokyo at that same instant, with date rollovers marked. On the day clocks jump forward, some hours do not exist locally — the table says so instead of showing a plausible but wrong value.