Ecuador vs Grenada: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol

Ecuador
69.23
in 2014
Grenada
69.23
in 2014
Ecuador rank
49th
Grenada rank
49th

Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol over time

  • Ecuador
  • Grenada
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 69.23 against 69.23 in Grenada, a difference of 0.

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

Ecuador ranks 49th and Grenada ranks 49th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Grenada Difference Ahead
2000s 64.62 69.23 4.62 Grenada
2010s 69.23 69.23 0

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol, Ecuador or Grenada?
Ecuador, at 69.23 against 69.23 in Grenada as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Ecuador and Grenada?
0, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Grenada?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Ecuador and Grenada rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
Ecuador ranks 49th and Grenada ranks 49th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (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: Documents to import (number) (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 number of documents 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.