Lithuania vs Switzerland: Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (

Lithuania
93
in 2019
Switzerland
93.25
in 2019
Lithuania rank
33rd
Switzerland rank
32nd

Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) ( over time

  • Lithuania
  • Switzerland
020406080100201420162019

How they compare

Switzerland currently reports 93.25 against 93 in Lithuania, a difference of 0.25.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Switzerland has been ahead every year.

Lithuania ranks 33rd and Switzerland ranks 32nd of 188 countries.

Switzerland has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) (, Lithuania or Switzerland?
Switzerland, at 93.25 against 93 in Lithuania as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) ( between Lithuania and Switzerland?
0.25, with Switzerland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Lithuania and Switzerland?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Lithuania and Switzerland rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export: documentary compliance (usd) (?
Lithuania ranks 33rd and Switzerland ranks 32nd of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Trading across borders: Cost to export: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The score for the cost for documentary compliance to export benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.