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

Comoros
83.55
in 2014
Kuwait
84.35
in 2014
Comoros rank
79th
Kuwait rank
76th

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

  • Comoros
  • Kuwait
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Kuwait currently reports 84.35 against 83.55 in Comoros, a difference of 0.8.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Comoros ahead.

Comoros ranks 79th and Kuwait ranks 76th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Comoros Kuwait Difference Ahead
2000s 79.87 76.45 3.43 Comoros
2010s 82.76 80.52 2.25 Comoros

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, Comoros or Kuwait?
Kuwait, at 84.35 against 83.55 in Comoros as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Comoros and Kuwait?
0.8, with Kuwait ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Comoros and Kuwait?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Comoros and Kuwait rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Comoros ranks 79th and Kuwait ranks 76th 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.