Guatemala vs Honduras: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Guatemala
80.65
in 2014
Honduras
80.65
in 2014
Guatemala rank
71st
Honduras rank
71st

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

  • Guatemala
  • Honduras
020406080200520092014

How they compare

Guatemala currently reports 80.65 against 80.65 in Honduras, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 10 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Honduras ahead.

Guatemala ranks 71st and Honduras ranks 71st of 181 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Guatemala averaged higher in 1 and Honduras in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Guatemala Honduras Difference Ahead
2000s 70 70.97 0.9677 Honduras
2010s 80.65 76.77 3.87 Guatemala

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), Guatemala or Honduras?
Guatemala, at 80.65 against 80.65 in Honduras as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Guatemala and Honduras?
0, with Guatemala ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Guatemala and Honduras?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Guatemala and Honduras rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Guatemala ranks 71st and Honduras ranks 71st 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.