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

Malaysia
96.6
in 2014
Tonga
97.66
in 2014
Malaysia rank
4th
Tonga rank
3rd

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

  • Malaysia
  • Tonga
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Tonga currently reports 97.66 against 96.6 in Malaysia, a difference of 1.06.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Malaysia ahead.

Malaysia ranks 4th and Tonga ranks 3rd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Malaysia Tonga Difference Ahead
2000s 97.83 92.66 5.17 Malaysia
2010s 97.92 97.29 0.6341 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 met, Malaysia or Tonga?
Tonga, at 97.66 against 96.6 in Malaysia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Malaysia and Tonga?
1.06, with Tonga ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Malaysia and Tonga?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Malaysia and Tonga rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Malaysia ranks 4th and Tonga ranks 3rd 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.