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

Finland
95.44
in 2014
Seychelles
94.56
in 2014
Finland rank
10th
Seychelles rank
13th

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

  • Finland
  • Seychelles
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Finland currently reports 95.44 against 94.56 in Seychelles, a difference of 0.88.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Finland has been ahead every year.

Finland ranks 10th and Seychelles ranks 13th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Finland Seychelles Difference Ahead
2000s 96.57 75.71 20.86 Finland
2010s 94.99 91.19 3.8 Finland

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, Finland or Seychelles?
Finland, at 95.44 against 94.56 in Seychelles as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Finland and Seychelles?
0.88, with Finland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Finland and Seychelles?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Finland and Seychelles rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Finland ranks 10th and Seychelles ranks 13th 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.