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

Oman
94.11
in 2014
Palau
94.47
in 2014
Oman rank
17th
Palau rank
14th

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

  • Oman
  • Palau
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Palau currently reports 94.47 against 94.11 in Oman, a difference of 0.36.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Oman ahead.

Oman ranks 17th and Palau ranks 14th of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Oman averaged higher in 1 and Palau in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Oman Palau Difference Ahead
2000s 93.4 87.82 5.58 Oman
2010s 93.08 93.85 0.7695 Palau

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, Oman or Palau?
Palau, at 94.47 against 94.11 in Oman as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Oman and Palau?
0.36, with Palau ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Oman and Palau?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Oman and Palau rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Oman ranks 17th and Palau ranks 14th 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.