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

Sudan
51.63
in 2014
Uganda
47.93
in 2014
Sudan rank
161st
Uganda rank
163rd

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

  • Sudan
  • Uganda
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Sudan currently reports 51.63 against 47.93 in Uganda, a difference of 3.7.

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

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

Sudan ranks 161st and Uganda ranks 163rd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Sudan Uganda Difference Ahead
2000s 0 25.41 25.41 Uganda
2010s 21.95 31.35 9.4 Uganda

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, Sudan or Uganda?
Sudan, at 51.63 against 47.93 in Uganda as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me between Sudan and Uganda?
3.7, with Sudan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Sudan and Uganda?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Sudan and Uganda rank globally for trading across borders: cost to export (us$ per container) (db06-15 me?
Sudan ranks 161st and Uganda ranks 163rd 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.