Equatorial Guinea vs Mongolia: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)
Equatorial Guinea
35.48
in 2014
Mongolia
33.87
in 2014
Equatorial Guinea rank
162nd
Mongolia rank
164th
Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology) over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Mongolia
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 35.48 against 33.87 in Mongolia, a difference of 1.61.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 162nd and Mongolia ranks 164th of 181 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Equatorial Guinea averaged higher in 1 and Mongolia in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Mongolia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 36.77 | 36.13 | 0.6452 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 35.48 | 35.81 | 0.3226 | Mongolia |
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), Equatorial Guinea or Mongolia?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 35.48 against 33.87 in Mongolia as of 2014.
- What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Equatorial Guinea and Mongolia?
- 1.61, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Mongolia?
- 10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Mongolia rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 162nd and Mongolia ranks 164th 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
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.