Grenada vs Guinea-Bissau: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met
Grenada
68.01
in 2014
Guinea-Bissau
70.92
in 2014
Grenada rank
137th
Guinea-Bissau rank
134th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15 met over time
- Grenada
- Guinea-Bissau
How they compare
Guinea-Bissau currently reports 70.92 against 68.01 in Grenada, a difference of 2.91.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Guinea-Bissau ahead.
Grenada ranks 137th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 134th of 181 countries.
Guinea-Bissau has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Grenada | Guinea-Bissau | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 60.17 | 66.01 | 5.84 | Guinea-Bissau |
| 2010s | 66.3 | 69.52 | 3.23 | Guinea-Bissau |
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, Grenada or Guinea-Bissau?
- Guinea-Bissau, at 70.92 against 68.01 in Grenada as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Grenada and Guinea-Bissau?
- 2.91, with Guinea-Bissau ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Grenada and Guinea-Bissau?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Grenada and Guinea-Bissau rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
- Grenada ranks 137th and Guinea-Bissau ranks 134th 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.