Germany vs Sweden: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Germany
95.16
in 2014
Sweden
96.77
in 2014
Germany rank
10th
Sweden rank
7th

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

  • Germany
  • Sweden
020406080100200520092014

How they compare

Sweden currently reports 96.77 against 95.16 in Germany, a difference of 1.61.

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

Germany ranks 10th and Sweden ranks 7th of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Germany Sweden Difference Ahead
2000s 95.16 96.77 1.61 Sweden
2010s 95.16 96.77 1.61 Sweden

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), Germany or Sweden?
Sweden, at 96.77 against 95.16 in Germany as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Germany and Sweden?
1.61, with Sweden ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Germany and Sweden?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Germany and Sweden rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Germany ranks 10th and Sweden ranks 7th 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.