Burkina Faso vs Equatorial Guinea: Registering property: Cost (% of property value) - Score
Burkina Faso
20.5%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
16.7%
in 2019
Burkina Faso rank
174th
Equatorial Guinea rank
175th
Registering property: Cost (% of property value) - Score over time
- Burkina Faso
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Burkina Faso currently reports 20.5% against 16.7% in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 3.8%.
That makes Burkina Faso's figure about 1.2 times Equatorial Guinea's.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Burkina Faso ranks 174th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 175th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Burkina Faso averaged higher in 1 and Equatorial Guinea in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Burkina Faso | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 4.6% | 16.7% | 12.1% | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 17.8% | 16.7% | 1.2% | Burkina Faso |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher registering property: cost (% of property value) - score, Burkina Faso or Equatorial Guinea?
- Burkina Faso, at 20.5% against 16.7% in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in registering property: cost (% of property value) - score between Burkina Faso and Equatorial Guinea?
- 3.8%, with Burkina Faso ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Burkina Faso and Equatorial Guinea?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Burkina Faso and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for registering property: cost (% of property value) - score?
- Burkina Faso ranks 174th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 175th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Registering property: Cost (% of property value) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for cost 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.