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

Guinea
80.26
in 2014
India
80.58
in 2014
Guinea rank
100th
India rank
99th

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

  • Guinea
  • India
20406080200520092014

How they compare

India currently reports 80.58 against 80.26 in Guinea, a difference of 0.32.

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

Guinea ranks 100th and India ranks 99th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Guinea India Difference Ahead
2000s 40.58 72.77 32.19 India
2010s 72.58 80.52 7.95 India

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, Guinea or India?
India, at 80.58 against 80.26 in Guinea as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Guinea and India?
0.32, with India ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea and India?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Guinea and India rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Guinea ranks 100th and India ranks 99th 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.