Equatorial Guinea vs Eritrea: Paying taxes: Total tax and contribution rate (% of profit) - Score
Equatorial Guinea
13.2%
in 2019
Eritrea
1.3%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
186th
Eritrea rank
188th
Paying taxes: Total tax and contribution rate (% of profit) - Score over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Eritrea
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 13.2% against 1.3% in Eritrea, a difference of 11.9%.
That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 10.2 times Eritrea's.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Equatorial Guinea has been ahead every year.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 186th and Eritrea ranks 188th of 191 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Eritrea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 69.8% | 0.0% | 69.8% | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 47.1% | 0.9% | 46.2% | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher paying taxes: total tax and contribution rate (% of profit) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Eritrea?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 13.2% against 1.3% in Eritrea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in paying taxes: total tax and contribution rate (% of profit) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Eritrea?
- 11.9%, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Eritrea?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Eritrea rank globally for paying taxes: total tax and contribution rate (% of profit) - score?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 186th and Eritrea ranks 188th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Paying taxes: Total tax and contribution rate (% of profit) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for total tax and contribution rate benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance.