Comoros vs Equatorial Guinea: Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita)
Comoros
95.7%
in 2019
Equatorial Guinea
94.3%
in 2019
Comoros rank
178th
Equatorial Guinea rank
179th
Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% of income per capita) over time
- Comoros
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Comoros currently reports 95.7% against 94.3% in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 1.4%.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 17 shared years of data; in 2003 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Comoros ranks 178th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 179th 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 | 27.3% | 87.9% | 60.6% | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 65.9% | 95.1% | 29.3% | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita), Comoros or Equatorial Guinea?
- Comoros, at 95.7% against 94.3% in Equatorial Guinea as of 2019.
- What is the difference in starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita) between Comoros and Equatorial Guinea?
- 1.4%, with Comoros ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Comoros and Equatorial Guinea?
- 17 years are reported by both, from 2003 to 2019.
- How do Comoros and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for starting a business: paid-in minimum capital (% of income per capita)?
- Comoros ranks 178th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 179th of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Starting a business: Paid-in Minimum capital (% 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 paid-in minimum capital requirement 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.