Comoros vs Guinea: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16

Comoros
36.22
in 2019
Guinea
32.62
in 2019
Comoros rank
156th
Guinea rank
159th

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16 over time

  • Comoros
  • Guinea
010203040201420162019

How they compare

Comoros currently reports 36.22 against 32.62 in Guinea, a difference of 3.6.

That makes Comoros's figure about 1.1 times Guinea's.

Across all 6 years both countries report, Comoros has been ahead every year.

Comoros ranks 156th and Guinea ranks 159th of 188 countries.

Comoros has averaged higher in every one of the 1 decades both report.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16, Comoros or Guinea?
Comoros, at 36.22 against 32.62 in Guinea as of 2019.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16 between Comoros and Guinea?
3.6, with Comoros ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Comoros and Guinea?
6 years are reported by both, from 2014 to 2019.
How do Comoros and Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import: border compliance (usd) (db16?
Comoros ranks 156th and Guinea ranks 159th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 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 import: Border compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed

The score for the cost for border compliance to import 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 DB16-20 studies.