Australia vs Malaysia: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Australia
93.55
in 2014
Malaysia
93.55
in 2014
Australia rank
16th
Malaysia rank
16th

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

  • Australia
  • Malaysia
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Australia currently reports 93.55 against 93.55 in Malaysia, a difference of 0.

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

Australia ranks 16th and Malaysia ranks 16th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Australia Malaysia Difference Ahead
2000s 93.55 90.32 3.23 Australia
2010s 93.55 92.26 1.29 Australia

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology), Australia or Malaysia?
Australia, at 93.55 against 93.55 in Malaysia as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Australia and Malaysia?
0, with Australia ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Australia and Malaysia?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Australia and Malaysia rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Australia ranks 16th and Malaysia ranks 16th of 181 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Trading across borders: Time to import (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 import (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 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.