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

Ecuador
75.49
in 2014
Moldova
76.03
in 2014
Ecuador rank
129th
Moldova rank
126th

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

  • Ecuador
  • Moldova
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Moldova currently reports 76.03 against 75.49 in Ecuador, a difference of 0.54.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Ecuador ahead.

Ecuador ranks 129th and Moldova ranks 126th of 181 countries.

Ecuador has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Moldova Difference Ahead
2000s 68.15 51.01 17.15 Ecuador
2010s 73.49 69.46 4.03 Ecuador

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, Ecuador or Moldova?
Moldova, at 76.03 against 75.49 in Ecuador as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Ecuador and Moldova?
0.54, with Moldova ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Moldova?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Ecuador and Moldova rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Ecuador ranks 129th and Moldova ranks 126th 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.