Getting credit: Depth of credit information index … 0-6 DB05-14 in Iran
Iran: Getting credit: Depth of credit information index … 0-6 DB05-14 was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013. ▲ Rising
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) in Iran, 2004–2013
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB05-14 methodology.
Analysis
In 2013, getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Iran stood at 5 DB05-14 methodology. That is the highest value across all 10 years on record.
That represents a change of up 150.0% over ten years.
Over the whole period, getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Iran peaked at 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2012 and was at its lowest, 2 DB05-14 methodology, in 2004.
Iran ranks 31st of 184 countries on this measure, in the top quarter.
Getting credit: Depth of credit information index … 0-6 DB05-14 in Iran, year by year
| Year | DB05-14 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2 DB05-14 methodology | — |
| 2005 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | +50.0% |
| 2006 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2007 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2008 | 3 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2009 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +33.3% |
| 2010 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2011 | 4 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2012 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +25.0% |
| 2013 | 5 DB05-14 methodology | +0.0% |
Iran compared with similar countries
- Iran's 5 DB05-14 methodology is above the median for upper middle income countries, which is 5 DB05-14 methodology, 1.0× the median. (55 countries reporting)
- Iran's 5 DB05-14 methodology is above the median for Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan, which is 4 DB05-14 methodology, 1.2× the median. (21 countries reporting)
Averages by decade
| Decade | Average | Lowest | Highest | Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 3 DB05-14 methodology | 2 DB05-14 methodology | 4 DB05-14 methodology | 6 |
| 2010s | 4.5 DB05-14 methodology | 4 DB05-14 methodology | 5 DB05-14 methodology | 4 |
Countries ranked near Iran
- 31 China 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 India 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Indonesia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Russia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Japan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Brazil 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Albania 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Australia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Austria 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Azerbaijan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Belarus 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Bhutan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Botswana 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Cape Verde 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Chile 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Colombia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Croatia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Czechia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Estonia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Ghana 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Greece 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Hong Kong 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Iceland 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Ireland 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Israel 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Italy 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kazakhstan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kosovo 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kuwait 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Latvia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Lebanon 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Mongolia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Morocco 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 New Zealand 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Oman 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Portugal 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Puerto Rico 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Romania 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Serbia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Singapore 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Spain 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Sri Lanka 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Taiwan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Thailand 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Turkey 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Ukraine 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 United Arab Emirates 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Uruguay 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Uzbekistan 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Venezuela 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Palestine 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Zambia 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
- 31 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 5 DB05-14 methodology compare
More private sector data for Iran
- Merchandise trade 49.3% (2025)
- Food imports 26.1% (2023)
- Manufactures imports 57.5% (2023)
- Merchandise imports 65.63 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service imports 1.58 billion current US$ (2000)
- Food exports 5.6% (2023)
- Manufactures exports 21.4% (2023)
- Merchandise exports 113.22 billion current US$ (2025)
- Commercial service exports 1.36 billion current US$ (2000)
- Merchandise exports (current US$), per capita 1,225 current US$ per person (2025)
Frequently asked questions
- What is getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Iran?
- Getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) in Iran was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2013, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) recorded in Iran?
- The highest recorded value was 5 DB05-14 methodology in 2012.
- What is the lowest getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) recorded in Iran?
- The lowest recorded value was 2 DB05-14 methodology in 2004.
- How does Iran rank for getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6)?
- Iran ranks 31st out of 184 countries with data for 2013.
- Is getting credit: depth of credit information index (0-6) rising or falling in Iran?
- Over the last ten years it is up 150.0%. The long-run trend across the full record is rising.
- Where does this Iran data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Getting credit: Depth of credit information index (0-6) (DB05-14 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 10 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
The depth of credit information index measures the coverage, scope and accessibility of credit information available through credit reporting service providers such as credit bureaus or credit registries. The index ranges from 0 to 8 based on the methodology in the DB05-14 studies.