Dominica vs Equatorial Guinea: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Dominica
78.13
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea
78.13
in 2014
Dominica rank
116th
Equatorial Guinea rank
116th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Dominica
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Dominica currently reports 78.13 against 78.13 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Dominica ahead.
Dominica ranks 116th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 116th of 183 countries.
Dominica has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Dominica | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 72.08 | 57.36 | 14.71 | Dominica |
| 2010s | 76.47 | 71.88 | 4.59 | Dominica |
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), Dominica or Equatorial Guinea?
- Dominica, at 78.13 against 78.13 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Dominica and Equatorial Guinea?
- 0, with Dominica ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Dominica and Equatorial Guinea?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Dominica and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Dominica ranks 116th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 116th of 183 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
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.