Comparison workspace

Hold one metric frame constant across every selected country.

The compare view is built for faster analytical review. It keeps one methodology basis in place so differences come from the countries, not from moving assumptions.

Compared now

3 countriesChoose between two and five countries for side-by-side review

Matrix rows

3 metricsOrdered to match the methodology definition

Default use

Shortlist reviewFollow each row through to country-level source evidence

Metric matrix

Evidence first, narrative second

Metric	Spain	Great Britain	Sweden
Published HeadroomHow explicitly the country publishes usable access capacity, headroom, or queue-relevant visibility for new projects.	87 / 100Demand access transparency is unusually strongdirectSources	80 / 100Queue transparency improved materiallymixedSources	69 / 100Headroom is visible indirectly through plansproxy-richSources
Connection ProcessHow legible, prioritised, and decision-ready the grid-connection process is for serious new generation and demand projects.	76 / 100Access process is readable and evidence-backedmixedSources	88 / 100Connection process has clear reform momentumdirectSources	70 / 100Process is readable but not highly standardisedmixedSources
Reinforcement MomentumHow visibly the operator is building or enabling the network and flexibility needed to absorb additional load and generation.	82 / 100Transmission expansion keeps pace with transitionmixedSources	74 / 100Reinforcement momentum is real but still constrainedproxy-richSources	80 / 100Reinforcement programme is active and concretemixedSources

Comparison set

Select up to five countries

3 selected. The scoring frame stays fixed to this snapshot.

Readout

What this matrix is for

Use it to separate shortlist candidates quickly

Start with score direction, then inspect the raw metric label in each cell.
Use country pages for source citations and method notes before making a call.
Do not treat similar scores as identical risk; confidence flags still matter.