Equatorial Guinea vs Georgia: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container deflated)

Equatorial Guinea
1,600 DB06-15 methodology
in 2014
Georgia
1,595 DB06-15 methodology
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
66th
Georgia rank
69th

Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container deflated) over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Georgia
01.0k2.0k3.0k4.0k200520092014

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 1,600 DB06-15 methodology against 1,595 DB06-15 methodology in Georgia, a difference of 5 DB06-15 methodology.

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

Equatorial Guinea ranks 66th and Georgia ranks 69th of 183 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Georgia Difference Ahead
2000s 2,769 DB06-15 methodology 1,927 DB06-15 methodology 842.79 DB06-15 methodology Equatorial Guinea
2010s 1,952 DB06-15 methodology 1,650 DB06-15 methodology 301.36 DB06-15 methodology Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container deflated), Equatorial Guinea or Georgia?
Equatorial Guinea, at 1,600 DB06-15 methodology against 1,595 DB06-15 methodology in Georgia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container deflated) between Equatorial Guinea and Georgia?
5 DB06-15 methodology, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Georgia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Georgia rank globally for trading across borders: cost to import (us$ per container deflated)?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 66th and Georgia ranks 69th of 183 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container deflated)(DB06-15 methodology). Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Equatorial Guinea vs Georgia: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container deflated). Statizoid. Retrieved 17 August 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/trading-across-borders-cost-to-import-us-per-container-deflated-db06-15-methodology/equatorial-guinea/georgia/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/compare/trading-across-borders-cost-to-import-us-per-container-deflated-db06-15-methodology/equatorial-guinea/georgia/">Equatorial Guinea vs Georgia: Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container deflated)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Trading across borders: Cost to import (US$ per container deflated)(DB06-15 methodology)
Unit
DB06-15 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
183 places, 1,813 data points, 2005–2014
Last refreshed

The cost to import records the cost associated with importing a standardized cargo of goods by sea transport through 4 predefined stages: document preparation; customs clearance and inspections; inland transport and handling; and port and terminal handling. It is calculated in US dollars per container deflated. Cost measures the fees levied on import of goods in a 20-foot container, in US dollars. All fees charged by government agencies and the private sector to a trader in the process of exporting and importing the goods are taken into account. These include but are not limited to costs for documents, administrative fees for customs clearance and inspections, customs broker fees, port-related charges and inland transport costs. Only official costs are recorded. The component indicator is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-15 studies.