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

Sudan
46.17
in 2014
Uganda
46.61
in 2014
Sudan rank
161st
Uganda rank
160th

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

  • Sudan
  • Uganda
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

Uganda currently reports 46.61 against 46.17 in Sudan, a difference of 0.44.

Across all 10 years both countries report, Uganda has been ahead every year.

Sudan ranks 161st and Uganda ranks 160th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Sudan Uganda Difference Ahead
2000s 0 2.35 2.35 Uganda
2010s 15.16 36.85 21.68 Uganda

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, Sudan or Uganda?
Uganda, at 46.61 against 46.17 in Sudan as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met between Sudan and Uganda?
0.44, with Uganda ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Sudan and Uganda?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Sudan and Uganda rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container)(db06-15 met?
Sudan ranks 161st and Uganda ranks 160th 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.