Chile vs Peru: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 me

Chile
89.11
in 2014
Peru
89.54
in 2014
Chile rank
54th
Peru rank
53rd

Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 me over time

  • Chile
  • Peru
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Peru currently reports 89.54 against 89.11 in Chile, a difference of 0.43.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Peru ahead.

Chile ranks 54th and Peru ranks 53rd of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Chile averaged higher in 1 and Peru in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Chile Peru Difference Ahead
2000s 89.2 90.13 0.9305 Peru
2010s 88.8 88.66 0.1381 Chile

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me, Chile or Peru?
Peru, at 89.54 against 89.11 in Chile as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Chile and Peru?
0.43, with Peru ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Chile and Peru?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Chile and Peru rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Chile ranks 54th and Peru ranks 53rd of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15 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 (US$ per container) (DB06-15 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 1,813 data points, 2005–2014
Last refreshed

The score for the cost 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 DB06-15 studies.