Eswatini vs United Kingdom: Registering property: Time (days) - Score

Eswatini
90.43
in 2019
United Kingdom
90.19
in 2019
Eswatini rank
65th
United Kingdom rank
66th

Registering property: Time (days) - Score over time

  • Eswatini
  • United Kingdom
020406080100200420112019

How they compare

Eswatini currently reports 90.43 against 90.19 in United Kingdom, a difference of 0.24.

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

Eswatini ranks 65th and United Kingdom ranks 66th of 188 countries.

Across the 2 decades both report, Eswatini averaged higher in 1 and United Kingdom in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Eswatini United Kingdom Difference Ahead
2000s 79.43 81.87 2.44 United Kingdom
2010s 89.43 89.19 0.2392 Eswatini

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher registering property: time (days) - score, Eswatini or United Kingdom?
Eswatini, at 90.43 against 90.19 in United Kingdom as of 2019.
What is the difference in registering property: time (days) - score between Eswatini and United Kingdom?
0.24, with Eswatini ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Eswatini and United Kingdom?
15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
How do Eswatini and United Kingdom rank globally for registering property: time (days) - score?
Eswatini ranks 65th and United Kingdom ranks 66th of 188 countries.
Where does this data come from?
The World Bank, published as Registering property: Time (days) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Registering property: Time (days) - 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 the number of procedures 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.