Guinea-Bissau vs Honduras: Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15)
Guinea-Bissau
77.39
in 2014
Honduras
77.34
in 2014
Guinea-Bissau rank
121st
Honduras rank
122nd
Trading across borders: Cost to export (US$ per container) (DB06-15) over time
- Guinea-Bissau
- Honduras
How they compare
Guinea-Bissau currently reports 77.39 against 77.34 in Honduras, a difference of 0.05.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Guinea-Bissau ahead.
Guinea-Bissau ranks 121st and Honduras ranks 122nd of 183 countries.
Honduras has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guinea-Bissau | Honduras | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 71.65 | 73.57 | 1.92 | Honduras |
| 2010s | 76.84 | 78.09 | 1.25 | Honduras |
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), Guinea-Bissau or Honduras?
- Guinea-Bissau, at 77.39 against 77.34 in Honduras as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15) between Guinea-Bissau and Honduras?
- 0.05, with Guinea-Bissau ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea-Bissau and Honduras?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Guinea-Bissau and Honduras rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15)?
- Guinea-Bissau ranks 121st and Honduras ranks 122nd of 183 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
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.