Congo vs Equatorial Guinea: Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score
Congo
68.9%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
70.5%
in 2019
Congo rank
179th
Equatorial Guinea rank
178th
Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Congo
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 70.5% against 68.9% in Congo, a difference of 1.6%.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Congo ranks 179th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 178th of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Congo averaged higher in 1 and Equatorial Guinea in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Congo | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 35.9% | 50.4% | 14.5% | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 66.5% | 51.9% | 14.6% | Congo |
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, Congo or Equatorial Guinea?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 70.5% against 68.9% in Congo as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score between Congo and Equatorial Guinea?
- 1.6%, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Congo and Equatorial Guinea?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Congo and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score?
- Congo ranks 179th 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.