Guinea vs Nepal: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Guinea
37.5
in 2014
Nepal
29.17
in 2014
Guinea rank
160th
Nepal rank
162nd

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

  • Guinea
  • Nepal
010203040200520092014

How they compare

Guinea currently reports 37.5 against 29.17 in Nepal, a difference of 8.33.

That makes Guinea's figure about 1.3 times Nepal's.

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

Guinea ranks 160th and Nepal ranks 162nd of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Guinea Nepal Difference Ahead
2000s 41.67 24.58 17.08 Guinea
2010s 37.5 27.08 10.42 Guinea

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), Guinea or Nepal?
Guinea, at 37.5 against 29.17 in Nepal as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Guinea and Nepal?
8.33, with Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea and Nepal?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Guinea and Nepal rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Guinea ranks 160th and Nepal ranks 162nd 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.