How does Guatemala rank for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) (?

Guatemala ranks 37th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.

Is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( rising or falling in Guatemala?

Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.

Where does this Guatemala data come from?

The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Guatemala

Name: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Guatemala
Creator: World Bank
License: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)

Guatemala: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( was 94.71 in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

94.71

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

37th

of 188 countries

All-time high

94.71

in 2014

All-time low

94.71

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Guatemala, 2014–2019

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

Guatemala recorded 94.71 for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

That represents a change of unchanged over ten years.

Guatemala ranks 37th of 188 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.

Countries ranked near Guatemala

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Guatemala

Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.9286 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 1.39 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 3.72 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.1246 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 3.72 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 3.11 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure Management 1.9 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 7.68 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - IPCC Agriculture 18.61 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Crop Residues 0.6786 (2050)

All data for Guatemala →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Guatemala?: Trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Guatemala was 94.71 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( recorded in Guatemala?: The highest recorded value was 94.71 in 2014.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( recorded in Guatemala?: The lowest recorded value was 94.71 in 2014.
How does Guatemala rank for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) (?: Guatemala ranks 37th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( rising or falling in Guatemala?: Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Guatemala data come from?: The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

About this data

Indicator: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source: World Bank
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage: 190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed: 10 August 2026

The score for the cost for documentary compliance 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 DB16-20 studies.