Malaysia vs Sao Tome and Principe: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Malaysia
96.6
in 2014
Sao Tome and Principe
96.3
in 2014
Malaysia rank
4th
Sao Tome and Principe rank
7th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Malaysia
- Sao Tome and Principe
How they compare
Malaysia currently reports 96.6 against 96.3 in Sao Tome and Principe, a difference of 0.3.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Malaysia has been ahead every year.
Malaysia ranks 4th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 7th of 184 countries.
Malaysia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Malaysia | Sao Tome and Principe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 97.83 | 78.67 | 19.15 | Malaysia |
| 2010s | 97.92 | 93.87 | 4.05 | Malaysia |
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), Malaysia or Sao Tome and Principe?
- Malaysia, at 96.6 against 96.3 in Sao Tome and Principe as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Malaysia and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 0.3, with Malaysia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Malaysia and Sao Tome and Principe?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Malaysia and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Malaysia ranks 4th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 7th of 184 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.