Rwanda vs Sierra Leone: Trading across borders: Time to import (days) (DB06-15 methodology)

Rwanda
62.9
in 2014
Sierra Leone
61.29
in 2014
Rwanda rank
128th
Sierra Leone rank
131st

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

  • Rwanda
  • Sierra Leone
0204060200520092014

How they compare

Rwanda currently reports 62.9 against 61.29 in Sierra Leone, a difference of 1.61.

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

Rwanda ranks 128th and Sierra Leone ranks 131st of 181 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Rwanda Sierra Leone Difference Ahead
2000s 17.74 52.58 34.84 Sierra Leone
2010s 57.1 60.32 3.23 Sierra Leone

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), Rwanda or Sierra Leone?
Rwanda, at 62.9 against 61.29 in Sierra Leone as of 2014.
What is the difference in trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology) between Rwanda and Sierra Leone?
1.61, with Rwanda ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Rwanda and Sierra Leone?
10 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2014.
How do Rwanda and Sierra Leone rank globally for trading across borders: time to import (days) (db06-15 methodology)?
Rwanda ranks 128th and Sierra Leone ranks 131st 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.