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

Eritrea
71.03
in 2014
Nigeria
71.75
in 2014
Eritrea rank
133rd
Nigeria rank
131st

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

  • Eritrea
  • Nigeria
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Nigeria currently reports 71.75 against 71.03 in Eritrea, a difference of 0.72.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Nigeria ahead.

Eritrea ranks 133rd and Nigeria ranks 131st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Eritrea Nigeria Difference Ahead
2000s 18.33 42.44 24.11 Nigeria
2010s 62.43 68.74 6.3 Nigeria

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, Eritrea or Nigeria?
Nigeria, at 71.75 against 71.03 in Eritrea as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Eritrea and Nigeria?
0.72, with Nigeria ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eritrea and Nigeria?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Eritrea and Nigeria rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Eritrea ranks 133rd and Nigeria ranks 131st 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.