Equatorial Guinea vs Zimbabwe: Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score
Equatorial Guinea
70.5%
in 2019
Zimbabwe
61.7%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea rank
178th
Zimbabwe rank
181st
Starting a business: Cost - Men (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Equatorial Guinea
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 70.5% against 61.7% in Zimbabwe, a difference of 8.8%.
That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 1.1 times Zimbabwe's.
Across all 15 years both countries report, Equatorial Guinea has been ahead every year.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 178th and Zimbabwe ranks 181st of 191 countries.
Equatorial Guinea has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Equatorial Guinea | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 50.4% | 2.0% | 48.3% | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 51.9% | 36.6% | 15.3% | 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, Equatorial Guinea or Zimbabwe?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 70.5% against 61.7% in Zimbabwe as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score between Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe?
- 8.8%, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe rank globally for starting a business: cost - men (% of income per capita) - score?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 178th and Zimbabwe ranks 181st 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.