Mauritania vs Saudi Arabia: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol
Mauritania
53.85
in 2014
Saudi Arabia
53.85
in 2014
Mauritania rank
107th
Saudi Arabia rank
107th
Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15 methodol over time
- Mauritania
- Saudi Arabia
How they compare
Mauritania currently reports 53.85 against 53.85 in Saudi Arabia, a difference of 0.
Across all 10 years both countries report, Saudi Arabia has been ahead every year.
Mauritania ranks 107th and Saudi Arabia ranks 107th of 183 countries.
Saudi Arabia has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Mauritania | Saudi Arabia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 53.85 | 58.46 | 4.62 | Saudi Arabia |
| 2010s | 53.85 | 58.46 | 4.62 | Saudi Arabia |
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, Mauritania or Saudi Arabia?
- Mauritania, at 53.85 against 53.85 in Saudi Arabia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol between Mauritania and Saudi Arabia?
- 0, with Mauritania ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Mauritania and Saudi Arabia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Mauritania and Saudi Arabia rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15 methodol?
- Mauritania ranks 107th and Saudi Arabia ranks 107th of 183 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
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.