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

Mali
25.93
in 2014
Rwanda
17.93
in 2014
Mali rank
170th
Rwanda rank
171st

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

  • Mali
  • Rwanda
1020304050200520092014

How they compare

Mali currently reports 25.93 against 17.93 in Rwanda, a difference of 8.

That makes Mali's figure about 1.4 times Rwanda's.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Mali ahead.

Mali ranks 170th and Rwanda ranks 171st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Mali Rwanda Difference Ahead
2000s 36.14 17.02 19.12 Mali
2010s 35.87 34.71 1.16 Mali

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, Mali or Rwanda?
Mali, at 25.93 against 17.93 in Rwanda as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Mali and Rwanda?
8, with Mali ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Mali and Rwanda?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Mali and Rwanda rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Mali ranks 170th and Rwanda ranks 171st 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.