Ethiopia vs Sudan: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met
Ethiopia
53.98
in 2014
Sudan
46.17
in 2014
Ethiopia rank
159th
Sudan rank
161st
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met over time
- Ethiopia
- Sudan
How they compare
Ethiopia currently reports 53.98 against 46.17 in Sudan, a difference of 7.81.
That makes Ethiopia's figure about 1.2 times Sudan's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Sudan ahead.
Ethiopia ranks 159th and Sudan ranks 161st of 181 countries.
Ethiopia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ethiopia | Sudan | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.0127 | 0 | 0.0127 | Ethiopia |
| 2010s | 38.82 | 15.16 | 23.65 | Ethiopia |
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, Ethiopia or Sudan?
- Ethiopia, at 53.98 against 46.17 in Sudan as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Ethiopia and Sudan?
- 7.81, with Ethiopia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ethiopia and Sudan?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Ethiopia and Sudan rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
- Ethiopia ranks 159th and Sudan ranks 161st 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.