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

Russia
56.63
in 2014
Sudan
51.63
in 2014
Russia rank
158th
Sudan rank
161st

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

  • Russia
  • Sudan
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Russia currently reports 56.63 against 51.63 in Sudan, a difference of 5.

That makes Russia's figure about 1.1 times Sudan's.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Russia has been ahead every year.

Russia ranks 158th and Sudan ranks 161st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Russia Sudan Difference Ahead
2000s 25.04 0 25.04 Russia
2010s 44.84 21.95 22.89 Russia

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, Russia or Sudan?
Russia, at 56.63 against 51.63 in Sudan as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Russia and Sudan?
5, with Russia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Russia and Sudan?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Russia and Sudan rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Russia ranks 158th and Sudan ranks 161st 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.