Ecuador vs Guyana: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Ecuador
72.92
in 2014
Guyana
72.92
in 2014
Ecuador rank
95th
Guyana rank
95th

Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology) over time

  • Ecuador
  • Guyana
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Ecuador currently reports 72.92 against 72.92 in Guyana, a difference of 0.

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

Ecuador ranks 95th and Guyana ranks 95th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Guyana Difference Ahead
2000s 68.33 69.17 0.8333 Guyana
2010s 71.25 72.92 1.67 Guyana

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology), Ecuador or Guyana?
Ecuador, at 72.92 against 72.92 in Guyana as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Ecuador and Guyana?
0, with Ecuador ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Guyana?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Ecuador and Guyana rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Ecuador ranks 95th and Guyana ranks 95th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (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: Time to export (days) (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 time to export 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.