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

Guyana
93.76
in 2014
Oman
94.11
in 2014
Guyana rank
19th
Oman rank
17th

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

  • Guyana
  • Oman
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Oman currently reports 94.11 against 93.76 in Guyana, a difference of 0.35.

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

Guyana ranks 19th and Oman ranks 17th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Guyana Oman Difference Ahead
2000s 85.65 93.4 7.75 Oman
2010s 92.33 93.08 0.7484 Oman

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, Guyana or Oman?
Oman, at 94.11 against 93.76 in Guyana as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Guyana and Oman?
0.35, with Oman ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guyana and Oman?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Guyana and Oman rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Guyana ranks 19th and Oman ranks 17th 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.