El Salvador vs Germany: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
El Salvador
88.16
in 2014
Germany
87.9
in 2014
El Salvador rank
56th
Germany rank
58th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- El Salvador
- Germany
How they compare
El Salvador currently reports 88.16 against 87.9 in Germany, a difference of 0.26.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was El Salvador ahead.
El Salvador ranks 56th and Germany ranks 58th of 183 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, El Salvador averaged higher in 1 and Germany in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | El Salvador | Germany | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 91.89 | 90.56 | 1.32 | El Salvador |
| 2010s | 88.74 | 88.92 | 0.1863 | Germany |
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), El Salvador or Germany?
- El Salvador, at 88.16 against 87.9 in Germany as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between El Salvador and Germany?
- 0.26, with El Salvador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for El Salvador and Germany?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do El Salvador and Germany rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- El Salvador ranks 56th and Germany ranks 58th 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.