Malawi vs Sudan: Trading across borders: Time to export (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Malawi
41.67
in 2014
Sudan
45.83
in 2014
Malawi rank
159th
Sudan rank
157th

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

  • Malawi
  • Sudan
01020304050200520092014

How they compare

Sudan currently reports 45.83 against 41.67 in Malawi, a difference of 4.16.

That makes Sudan's figure about 1.1 times Malawi's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Malawi ahead.

Malawi ranks 159th and Sudan ranks 157th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Malawi Sudan Difference Ahead
2000s 20.42 23.33 2.92 Sudan
2010s 35.83 45.83 10 Sudan

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), Malawi or Sudan?
Sudan, at 45.83 against 41.67 in Malawi as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Malawi and Sudan?
4.16, with Sudan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Malawi and Sudan?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Malawi and Sudan rank globally for trading across borders: time to export (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Malawi ranks 159th and Sudan ranks 157th 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.