Equatorial Guinea vs Zimbabwe: Getting electricity: Time (days) - Score

Equatorial Guinea
61.74
in 2019
Zimbabwe
61.74
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
145th
Zimbabwe rank
145th

Getting electricity: Time (days) - Score over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Zimbabwe
0204060200920142019

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 61.74 against 61.74 in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 11 shared years of data; in 2009 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 145th and Zimbabwe ranks 145th of 188 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Equatorial Guinea Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
2000s 61.74 53.48 8.26 Equatorial Guinea
2010s 61.74 60.09 1.65 Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher getting electricity: time (days) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Zimbabwe?
Equatorial Guinea, at 61.74 against 61.74 in Zimbabwe as of 2019.
What is the difference in getting electricity: time (days) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe?
0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe?
11 years are reported by both, from 2009 to 2019.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe rank globally for getting electricity: time (days) - score?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 145th and Zimbabwe ranks 145th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Getting electricity: Time (days) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Getting electricity: Time (days) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 2,068 data points, 2009–2019
Last refreshed

The score for time 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.