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

Montenegro
89.05
in 2014
Peru
88.61
in 2014
Montenegro rank
48th
Peru rank
50th

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

  • Montenegro
  • Peru
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Montenegro currently reports 89.05 against 88.61 in Peru, a difference of 0.44.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Peru ahead.

Montenegro ranks 48th and Peru ranks 50th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Montenegro Peru Difference Ahead
2000s 86.24 89.44 3.21 Peru
2010s 88.65 89.04 0.3915 Peru

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, Montenegro or Peru?
Montenegro, at 89.05 against 88.61 in Peru as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Montenegro and Peru?
0.44, with Montenegro ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Montenegro and Peru?
9 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2014.
How do Montenegro and Peru rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Montenegro ranks 48th and Peru ranks 50th 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.