Comoros vs Equatorial Guinea: Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score
Comoros
72.9%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
70.5%
in 2019
Comoros rank
176th
Equatorial Guinea rank
178th
Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Comoros
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Comoros currently reports 72.9% against 70.5% in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 2.4%.
The two have swapped places 1 time across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Comoros ranks 176th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 178th of 191 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Comoros | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 23.9% | 50.4% | 26.5% | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 51.1% | 51.9% | 0.8% | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score, Comoros or Equatorial Guinea?
- Comoros, at 72.9% against 70.5% in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score between Comoros and Equatorial Guinea?
- 2.4%, with Comoros ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Comoros and Equatorial Guinea?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Comoros and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score?
- Comoros ranks 176th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 178th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for the cost for men 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.