Ecuador vs Mauritania: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met
Ecuador
79.55
in 2014
Mauritania
79.5
in 2014
Ecuador rank
105th
Mauritania rank
107th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met over time
- Ecuador
- Mauritania
How they compare
Ecuador currently reports 79.55 against 79.5 in Mauritania, a difference of 0.05.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Ecuador ahead.
Ecuador ranks 105th and Mauritania ranks 107th of 181 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Ecuador averaged higher in 1 and Mauritania in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Mauritania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 74.45 | 74.19 | 0.2616 | Ecuador |
| 2010s | 78.1 | 78.46 | 0.3635 | Mauritania |
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 Mauritania?
- Ecuador, at 79.55 against 79.5 in Mauritania as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Ecuador and Mauritania?
- 0.05, with Ecuador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Mauritania?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Ecuador and Mauritania rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
- Ecuador ranks 105th and Mauritania ranks 107th 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
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.