Equatorial Guinea vs Malaysia: Registering property: Procedures (number) - Score

Equatorial Guinea
58.33
in 2019
Malaysia
58.33
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
80th
Malaysia rank
80th

Registering property: Procedures (number) - Score over time

  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Malaysia
0204060200420112019

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 58.33 against 58.33 in Malaysia, a difference of 0.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.

Equatorial Guinea ranks 80th and Malaysia ranks 80th 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 Malaysia Difference Ahead
2000s 58.33 41.67 16.67 Equatorial Guinea
2010s 58.33 45 13.33 Equatorial Guinea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher registering property: procedures (number) - score, Equatorial Guinea or Malaysia?
Equatorial Guinea, at 58.33 against 58.33 in Malaysia as of 2019.
What is the difference in registering property: procedures (number) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Malaysia?
0, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Malaysia?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Equatorial Guinea and Malaysia rank globally for registering property: procedures (number) - score?
Equatorial Guinea ranks 80th and Malaysia ranks 80th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Registering property: Procedures (number) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Registering property: Procedures (number) - Score
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 2,938 data points, 2004–2019
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.