Egypt vs Lithuania: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met
Egypt
92.51
in 2014
Lithuania
92.34
in 2014
Egypt rank
30th
Lithuania rank
33rd
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met over time
- Egypt
- Lithuania
How they compare
Egypt currently reports 92.51 against 92.34 in Lithuania, a difference of 0.17.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Lithuania ahead.
Egypt ranks 30th and Lithuania ranks 33rd of 183 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Egypt averaged higher in 1 and Lithuania in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Egypt | Lithuania | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 71.13 | 84.19 | 13.06 | Lithuania |
| 2010s | 89.68 | 89.43 | 0.2549 | Egypt |
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, Egypt or Lithuania?
- Egypt, at 92.51 against 92.34 in Lithuania as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Egypt and Lithuania?
- 0.17, with Egypt ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Egypt and Lithuania?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Egypt and Lithuania rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
- Egypt ranks 30th and Lithuania ranks 33rd 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.