Guinea-Bissau vs Zimbabwe: Starting a business: Cost - Women (% of income per capita) - Score
Guinea-Bissau
55.6%
in 2019
Zimbabwe
61.7%
in 2019
Guinea-Bissau rank
183rd
Zimbabwe rank
181st
Starting a business: Cost - Women (% of income per capita) - Score over time
- Guinea-Bissau
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Zimbabwe currently reports 61.7% against 55.6% in Guinea-Bissau, a difference of 6.1%.
That makes Zimbabwe's figure about 1.1 times Guinea-Bissau's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 15 shared years of data; in 2005 it was Zimbabwe ahead.
Guinea-Bissau ranks 183rd and Zimbabwe ranks 181st of 191 countries.
Across the 2 decades both report, Guinea-Bissau averaged higher in 1 and Zimbabwe in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Guinea-Bissau | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 1.6% | 2.0% | 0.4% | Zimbabwe |
| 2010s | 46.4% | 36.6% | 9.8% | Guinea-Bissau |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score, Guinea-Bissau or Zimbabwe?
- Zimbabwe, at 61.7% against 55.6% in Guinea-Bissau as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score between Guinea-Bissau and Zimbabwe?
- 6.1%, with Zimbabwe ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Guinea-Bissau and Zimbabwe?
- 15 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2019.
- How do Guinea-Bissau and Zimbabwe rank globally for starting a business: cost - women (% of income per capita) - score?
- Guinea-Bissau ranks 183rd and Zimbabwe ranks 181st of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Cost - Women (% 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 women 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.