I thought I'd tackle the comparative law portion of your question and look especially at Canada and the UK. I'll caveat that I'm only looking at explicit breaking of precedent, there's always room for semantic arguments in some cases whether a precedent has been broken in practice, or narrowed to the point of being wholly inapplicable.
The numerical analysis is for the 38.5 years between July 1966 – December 2004 for all jurisdictions for fair comparison. The start date is due to the UK House of Lords changing its stance on overturning its own precedent; the end date is a practical consideration of my Canadian source ending at that date.
Note that my methods aren't exactly 100% accurate, one could argue over the inclusion/exclusion of some cases, but this was more an interesting bit of research prompted by an interesting question.
UK - about 0.6%
In the UK, the House of Lords for much of its history stuck firmly to its own precedent as a rule. The outlook changed in 1966 when they issued the Practice Statement in July 1966, whose key part is as follows:
Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose therefore, to modify their present practice and, while treating former decisions of this house as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears right to do so.
That criterion is quite vague, but this was expanded upon as quoted in A v Hoare  UKHL 6 at para. 20:
I find the reasoning compelling and therefore consider that Stubbings was wrongly decided. But that is not in itself a ground for departing from it. The Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent)  1 WLR 1234 was intended, as Lord Reid said in R v National Insurance Comrs, Ex pp Hudson  AC 944, 966, to be applied only in a small number of cases in which previous decisions of the House were "thought to be impeding the proper development of the law or to have led to results which were unjust or contrary to public policy." Lord Reid also observed, at p 966:
"It is notorious that where an existing decision is disapproved but cannot be overruled courts tend to distinguish it on inadequate grounds. I do not think that they act wrongly in so doing: they are adopting the less bad of the only alternatives open to them. But this is bound to lead to uncertainty for no one can say in advance whether in a particular case the court will or will not feel bound to follow the old unsatisfactory decision. On balance it seems to me that overruling such a decision will promote and not impair the certainty of the law."
According to the above linked Wikipedia article, the House of Lords has indeed been fairly restrained, explicitly invoking the Practice Statement only 21 times up to the replacement of its judiciary functions by the UK Supreme Court in October 2009.
However, following the citation reveals a table of 21 cases where not all of them are marked as an explicit overruling. Sampling a few of the cases, I'm inclined not to count the four that are labelled "Declined to follow" and the unique DPP v Camplin case which doesn't seem to even mention the Practice Statement. Removing those, and the two which occur post-2004 leaves 14 cases.
From a rough and quick count of House of Lords cases from 1997-2008, they rendered an average of 62 judgments annually. Extrapolating that to the whole timeframe results in approximately 2390 cases, for a precedent breaking rate of approximately 0.6%, or about once every 2.7 years.
The UK Supreme Court inherited the Practice Statement when it replaced the House of Lords' judicial functions. I'm unfamiliar with how to search the UK case law efficiently, but there's no reason I can think of that the ratio would change drastically in the last decade. The most recent overruling of precedent I could find is  UKSC 47 at para. 253, though a much shorter, simpler and digestible example is  UKSC 9.
Canada - about 0.9%
In Canada, choosing the start date for analysis is slightly more arbitrary, but I'll note 1966 isn't far off from important distinctions in Canada's judicial history. Until 1949, decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) were appealable to the UK Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). Cases that had already commenced retained the possibility of appeal to the JCPC, with the last such case heard in 1959. Furthermore, the earliest case I can find where a majority clearly confirms the court's ability to overturn its own decisions is Binus v. R. from 1967 (though such ability was not exercised in that case, and a 1961 case is cited by my source below as a departure from precedent).
Overall, the philosophy of the SCC in overturning its own decisions is similar to the UK's. A non-exhaustive list of factors is elaborated on in Dickson CJ's dissent in R. v. Bernard,  2 S.C.R. 833 (not specifically disagreed with by the majority on this point & frequently cited in future cases). Three of the four factors are not too dissimilar from UK case law: The decision is excessively harsh/unjust for the criminally accused, attenuation of a decision has already rendered it very narrow, and the decision itself creates excessive legal uncertainty which the doctrine of stare decicis is meant to prevent in the first place.
The fourth factor is specifically Canadian: Bringing previous common law more in line with the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms introduced in 1982. It's difficult to account for whether introduction of the Charter would increase or decrease the court's likelihood of overturning precedent, especially since my analysis only looks at 16 pre-Charter years, but it's something to keep in mind. While the court has cautioned itself against overturning precedent favourable to the accused, I've also managed to find two cases where due to Charter influence, the court overturned precedent that was unfavourable to the accused when it arguably did not need to.
I've managed to locate Taking precedents seriously (Mark Chalmers, 2005) which provides in Appendix B an equivalent list for Canadian overturned precedents. It lists 44 cases, though for the purposes of this question I'm inclined to remove the ones marked as overturned for Charter reasons: these are highly likely to have been overturned due to the change in Constitution, meaning the original precedent was correct according to the Constitution at the time. Removing those and the single pre-1966 decision leaves 32 cases.
Note that I've decided to retain both instances of the SCC overruling its own pre-1949 decisions when it wasn't the final court of appeal, and instances of it overruling JCPC decisions which are today equivalent to SCC decisions. This is because in both instances, those decisions became the highest possible legal interpretive authority once appeal to the JCPC was removed.
From 2007-2017, the SCC averaged 70 judgments a year. Extrapolating that to the timeframe gives about 2700 cases for a precedent breaking rate of 0.9%, or about once every 1.2 years.
While I'm unable to list all post-2004 cases, I'd just like to note that the two most recent overturnings of precedent I'm aware of have also been the most wide-reaching in my opinion: Vavilov in 2019, overhauling judicial review of administrative decisions, and Jordan in 2016, setting presumptive time limits for the right to a speedy trial.
US - about 3.7%
For comparative purposes, I'll briefly run the US numbers in the same approximate fashion for my chosen timeframe.
Per the table cited by @user6726's answer, the US Supreme Court has overruled itself a comparatively astonishing 108 times in my chosen timeframe. Per Ballotpedia, between 2007-2019, the US Supreme court decided an average of 76 cases per year. Extrapolating out to the timeframe gives approximately 2930 cases, for a precedent breaking rate of about 3.7%, or about once every 0.4 years (once every 4 and a half months).
While my methods were quite approximate and per @Gumbercules's answer my timeframe happens to line up with the US Supreme Court's most active overturning time period, the disparity is so large that I believe it's safe to conclude that in the recent history starting from 1966 when the UK House of Lords allowed itself to overrule its own precedent, the US uses this ability more than either the Canadian or UK top courts.