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

Eswatini
66.68
in 2014
Grenada
68.01
in 2014
Eswatini rank
140th
Grenada rank
137th

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

  • Eswatini
  • Grenada
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Grenada currently reports 68.01 against 66.68 in Eswatini, a difference of 1.33.

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

Eswatini ranks 140th and Grenada ranks 137th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini Grenada Difference Ahead
2000s 47.98 60.17 12.19 Grenada
2010s 63.03 66.3 3.27 Grenada

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, Eswatini or Grenada?
Grenada, at 68.01 against 66.68 in Eswatini as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Eswatini and Grenada?
1.33, with Grenada ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and Grenada?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Eswatini and Grenada rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Eswatini ranks 140th and Grenada ranks 137th 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.