Time difference between Ubon Ratchathani and Tokyo
Tokyo is 2 hours ahead of Ubon Ratchathani.
Local time in both cities
Ubon Ratchathani · Thailand
17:07
Tokyo · Japan
19:07
Tokyo is 2 hours ahead of Ubon Ratchathani.
same day
Time zones
| Ubon Ratchathani | Asia/Bangkok · UTC+07:00 |
|---|---|
| Tokyo | Asia/Tokyo · UTC+09:00 |
Ubon Ratchathani does not observe daylight saving and stays on UTC+07:00 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 Ubon Ratchathani. The two places start and end daylight saving on different dates, so another day can give a different result.
| Ubon Ratchathani (source) | Tokyo (target) |
|---|---|
| 00:00 | 02:00 |
| 01:00 | 03:00 |
| 02:00 | 04:00 |
| 03:00 | 05:00 |
| 04:00 | 06:00 |
| 05:00 | 07:00 |
| 06:00 | 08:00 |
| 07:00 | 09:00 |
| 08:00 | 10:00 |
| 09:00 | 11:00 |
| 10:00 | 12:00 |
| 11:00 | 13:00 |
| 12:00 | 14:00 |
| 13:00 | 15:00 |
| 14:00 | 16:00 |
| 15:00 | 17:00 |
| 16:00 | 18:00 |
| 17:00 | 19:00 |
| 18:00 | 20:00 |
| 19:00 | 21:00 |
| 20:00 | 22:00 |
| 21:00 | 23:00 |
| 22:00 | 00:00 next day |
| 23:00 | 01:00 next day |
Other common differences from Ubon Ratchathani
FAQ
- How many hours apart are Ubon Ratchathani 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. Ubon Ratchathani uses Asia/Bangkok 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 Ubon Ratchathani; 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.