Saudi Arabia vs Sierra Leone: Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15)
Saudi Arabia
53.85
in 2014
Sierra Leone
53.85
in 2014
Saudi Arabia rank
107th
Sierra Leone rank
107th
Trading across borders: Documents to import (number) (DB06-15) over time
- Saudi Arabia
- Sierra Leone
How they compare
Saudi Arabia currently reports 53.85 against 53.85 in Sierra Leone, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Sierra Leone ahead.
Saudi Arabia ranks 107th and Sierra Leone 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 | Saudi Arabia | Sierra Leone | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 58.46 | 53.85 | 4.62 | Saudi Arabia |
| 2010s | 58.46 | 53.85 | 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), Saudi Arabia or Sierra Leone?
- Saudi Arabia, at 53.85 against 53.85 in Sierra Leone as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15) between Saudi Arabia and Sierra Leone?
- 0, with Saudi Arabia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Saudi Arabia and Sierra Leone?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Saudi Arabia and Sierra Leone rank globally for trading across borders: documents to import (number) (db06-15)?
- Saudi Arabia ranks 107th and Sierra Leone 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.