Nicaragua vs Trinidad and Tobago: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15)
Nicaragua
84.43
in 2014
Trinidad and Tobago
84.17
in 2014
Nicaragua rank
76th
Trinidad and Tobago rank
78th
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container)(DB06-15) over time
- Nicaragua
- Trinidad and Tobago
How they compare
Nicaragua currently reports 84.43 against 84.17 in Trinidad and Tobago, a difference of 0.26.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Trinidad and Tobago ahead.
Nicaragua ranks 76th and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 78th of 184 countries.
Trinidad and Tobago has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Nicaragua | Trinidad and Tobago | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 68.07 | 82.35 | 14.28 | Trinidad and Tobago |
| 2010s | 80.1 | 81.94 | 1.85 | Trinidad and Tobago |
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), Nicaragua or Trinidad and Tobago?
- Nicaragua, at 84.43 against 84.17 in Trinidad and Tobago as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15) between Nicaragua and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 0.26, with Nicaragua ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Nicaragua and Trinidad and Tobago?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Nicaragua and Trinidad and Tobago rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15)?
- Nicaragua ranks 76th and Trinidad and Tobago ranks 78th 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.