Armenia vs Grenada: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met

Armenia
67.92
in 2014
Grenada
68.01
in 2014
Armenia rank
138th
Grenada rank
137th

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

  • Armenia
  • Grenada
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Grenada currently reports 68.01 against 67.92 in Armenia, a difference of 0.09.

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

Armenia ranks 138th and Grenada ranks 137th of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Armenia averaged higher in 1 and Grenada in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Armenia Grenada Difference Ahead
2000s 61.26 60.17 1.09 Armenia
2010s 57.28 66.3 9.02 Grenada

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met, Armenia or Grenada?
Grenada, at 68.01 against 67.92 in Armenia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Armenia and Grenada?
0.09, with Grenada ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Armenia and Grenada?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Armenia and Grenada rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Armenia ranks 138th and Grenada ranks 137th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to import (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 import (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 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 DB06-15 studies.