The article examines in detail the history of reforms, development factors, and growth rates of the two countries. Many Russian analysts and ordinary citizens take interest in the phenomenal rise of China, which in 30 years has become the second largest economy in the world, and in 40 years has become a country on which the state of the world economy largely depends. Interest is intensified by the fact that both Russia in the USSR and China were for many years dominated by the ideas of communism, but they parted with them in different ways and with different results. If before the implementation of the ‘reform-and-openness’ policy (1978) the Chinese economy was three times smaller than the Russian one, 40 years on it became 8–10 times larger. For its part, India whose economy was multi-layered, but developed under the influence of the USSR and with active cooperation with it, for many years showed low growth rates compared to the Chinese economy. Some authoritative scholars argue that the reason for this was the closed nature of the Indian economy and protectionism. However, contrary to that assumption, A.V. Kiva believes that the starting conditions of the two countries were different. There were different political systems, ethno-social structure of society, and in India the levels of poverty and illiteracy were much higher; the caste system, that has never been eliminated, had some negative effects on the entire country. However, step by step, India has eliminated obstacles to development and increased the rates of her GDP growth, and in the last few years they have become higher than in China whose growth rates have begun to decline in recent years. As an argument, they cite two factors. First, observing international experience, they argue, that no country can keep high development rates indefinitely. And second, India, which did not have a family planning policy, has a young population, while China’s population is ageing. The author, however, considers this thesis disputable, as, as far as the development of the Fourth industrial revolution goes on, it is not the labour shortage, but the excess of it that is more likely to happen. Because of that, many analysts began to argue that in the foreseeable future, India could catch up and even outrun China, whose growth rates have begun to decline in recent years. When comparing the potentials of the two countries, the author concludes, India loses much to China and in the short term it is unlikely to become equal to it.