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

China
92.34
in 2014
Estonia
92.42
in 2014
China rank
32nd
Estonia rank
31st

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

  • China
  • Estonia
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Estonia currently reports 92.42 against 92.34 in China, a difference of 0.08.

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

China ranks 32nd and Estonia ranks 31st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade China Estonia Difference Ahead
2000s 95.23 90.22 5.01 China
2010s 94.07 91.93 2.14 China

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, China or Estonia?
Estonia, at 92.42 against 92.34 in China as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between China and Estonia?
0.08, with Estonia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China and Estonia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do China and Estonia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
China ranks 32nd and Estonia ranks 31st 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.