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

MetricNew ZealandFranceSweden
Published HeadroomHow explicitly the country publishes usable access capacity, headroom, or queue-relevant visibility for new projects.
74 / 100Capacity outlook is visible through planning toolsproxy-richSources
78 / 100Large-connection visibility is credibleproxy-richSources
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.
84 / 100Connection process is clear and developer-legibledirectSources
74 / 100Strong for large strategic projectsmixedSources
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.
80 / 100Future reinforcement programme is coherentmixedSources
83 / 100Reinforcement pipeline is tangibledirectSources
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.