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

Ecuador
79.55
in 2014
Madagascar
78.93
in 2014
Ecuador rank
105th
Madagascar rank
108th

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

  • Ecuador
  • Madagascar
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 79.55 against 78.93 in Madagascar, a difference of 0.62.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Ecuador has been ahead every year.

Ecuador ranks 105th and Madagascar ranks 108th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Madagascar Difference Ahead
2000s 74.45 61 13.45 Ecuador
2010s 78.1 74.38 3.71 Ecuador

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, Ecuador or Madagascar?
Ecuador, at 79.55 against 78.93 in Madagascar as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Ecuador and Madagascar?
0.62, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Madagascar?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Ecuador and Madagascar rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Ecuador ranks 105th and Madagascar ranks 108th 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.