Comparison · 8 min read · Updated 2026-07-07
2026 EPREL heat-pump brand shares in the Baltics vs Benelux
A data-led comparison of which manufacturers dominate EPREL listings in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and how brand mix changes by refrigerant, type and price band.
Who leads EPREL in the Baltics vs Benelux?
The short answer is that the registry snapshot supplied here does not contain bloc-level country splits for Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. So the corpus does not allow a literal ranking of brands within the Baltics versus within Benelux. The available brand_share probe is EU-wide, not regional, and no country-level brand table is included (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).
That matters because the headline question asks for regional leadership by model count, while the corpus only confirms who leads the overall EPREL heat-pump listing universe. Across the available market-wide ranking, Daikin Europe N.V. is first with 14,668 listed models and a 24.05% share, ahead of Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. on 5,575 models and 9.14%, and JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING EUROPE SAS, SUCURSAL EN ESPAÑA on 5,207 models and 8.54% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).
The rest of the top 10 is led by Bosch Thermotechnik GmbH with 3,602 models and 5.91%, Ariston SpA with 2,618 and 4.29%, ATLANTIC SOC FRANCAISE DEVELOP THERMIQUE with 1,516 and 2.49%, Vaillant GmbH with 1,195 and 1.96%, and BDR Thermea Group B.V. with 925 and 1.52% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).
For readers comparing regional supply, the practical use of this article is therefore narrower than the title suggests: it can show how concentrated the overall EPREL catalog is, how the leading brands compare on average SCOP, and what the overall type mix looks like in the live heat-pump catalog. It cannot prove, from this corpus alone, that one of the two blocs is more concentrated or more premium.
How concentrated is each bloc’s brand mix?
The registry does not provide the necessary bloc-level counts, so the top-3 and top-5 concentration for the Baltics and Benelux cannot be calculated from the supplied data.
What can be calculated is the concentration of the overall EPREL leaderboard. The top three manufacturers account for 37.73% of all listed models: Daikin at 24.05%, Mitsubishi Electric at 9.14%, and Johnson Controls Hitachi at 8.54% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). The top five account for 51.93% once Bosch at 5.91% and Ariston at 4.29% are added (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).
That is a fairly concentrated headline market by listing count. Out of 60,989 total models in the dataset, Daikin alone contributes 14,668 listings, which is more than 2.6 times Mitsubishi Electric’s 5,575 and more than four times Bosch’s 3,602 (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). Readers can inspect the wider manufacturer long tail in the manufacturer index or the broader ranking logic in the leaderboards hub.
Overall EPREL brand concentration
| Rank | Manufacturer | Models | Share | Avg SCOP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Daikin Europe N.V. | 14,668 | 24.05% | 4.44 |
| 2 | Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. | 5,575 | 9.14% | 4.51 |
| 3 | JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING EUROPE SAS, SUCURSAL EN ESPAÑA | 5,207 | 8.54% | 4.18 |
| 4 | Bosch Thermotechnik GmbH | 3,602 | 5.91% | 4.69 |
| 5 | Ariston SpA | 2,618 | 4.29% | 4.66 |
Source for all figures: (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation)
On efficiency, the leading five brands are relatively tightly grouped except for Johnson Controls Hitachi. Bosch posts the highest average SCOP among the top five at 4.69, followed by Ariston at 4.66, Mitsubishi Electric at 4.51, Daikin at 4.44 and Johnson Controls Hitachi at 4.18 (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). The gap between the highest and lowest average SCOP inside that top-five group is 0.51 points (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).
Again, the corpus does not identify which of these brands lead in the Baltics or in Benelux specifically. A proper regional comparison would require country-filtered brand shares, such as those usually surfaced in a country dashboard like the 32-country comparison view, but those numbers are not present in this JSON.
R290 vs R32: which refrigerant changes the leaderboard?
This is the biggest data hole in the corpus. The supplied research includes two top_models probes filtered to R290 and R32, but both return empty arrays, so the dataset does not record any refrigerant-specific leaderboard, brand rank shift, or model count split by refrigerant for this article (top_models / EPREL Public API via Househeating Pulse catalog).
That means the following requested questions cannot be answered numerically from the evidence provided:
- what share of top-listed models use R290 versus R32 in the Baltics or Benelux;
- which refrigerant dominates each bloc’s leaderboard;
- how brand rank changes inside each bloc when filtering to only R290 models or only R32 models;
- how many models each top brand has in those refrigerant subsets.
The evidence simply is not there. The corpus also includes no successful brand_detail responses; the two attempts shown both failed because the slugs queried were invalid, so there is no fallback brand-level refrigerant mix to cite ((probe failed — data unavailable)).
The only safe editorial point is methodological: refrigerant-sensitive comparisons are possible in principle through the live refrigerants reference, filtered catalog pages, and the methodology notes, but they are not supported by the snapshot embedded here. Where the article brief expects a Baltics-versus-Benelux refrigerant story, the registry extract supplied does not substantiate one.
Do the Baltics skew narrower while Benelux looks more premium?
The corpus does not permit that regional verdict either. There is no bloc-level type distribution, no bloc-level energy-class band share, and no country-group average SCOP. So it cannot be shown numerically here that the Baltics are narrower in type mix or that Benelux is more premium.
What is available is the overall type structure of the EPREL heat-pump dataset. Across all listed models, air-water heat pumps dominate with 30,452 models, while air-air heat pumps follow with 21,065. Ground-water models account for 213, water-water for 31, and heat-pump water heaters for 9,228 (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation).
Expressed as shares of the 60,989 total models in the corpus, air-water represents about 49.93%, air-air about 34.54%, heat-pump water heaters about 15.13%, ground-water about 0.35%, and water-water about 0.05% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation; type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation). Those are overall-market proportions, not Baltics or Benelux proportions.
Overall EPREL type mix and average SCOP
| Type | Models | Share of total | Avg SCOP |
|---|---|---|---|
| air-water | 30,452 | 49.93% | 4.54 |
| air-air | 21,065 | 34.54% | registry does not report |
| hp-water-heater | 9,228 | 15.13% | registry does not report |
| ground-water | 213 | 0.35% | 4.77 |
| water-water | 31 | 0.05% | 6.15 |
Sources: (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation); (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation)
On the efficiency side, water-water shows the highest average SCOP at 6.15, but that is based on only 31 models; ground-water averages 4.77 across 213 models, while air-water averages 4.54 across 30,452 models (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation). That overall pattern helps explain why the top SCOP air-to-water leaderboard and the ground-source leaderboard often need to be read separately: type mix drives a large part of the efficiency spread.
The “premium” part of the brief is even more constrained. There is no energy-class distribution in the corpus, so the share of models in the highest class band cannot be calculated for either bloc or for the market as a whole. Buyers looking for that filter can use the live highest energy class catalog view, but there is no snapshot figure here to quote.
What the regional split means for buyers and installers in 2026
The evidence in this corpus supports a few solid 2026 takeaways, but not the full Baltics-versus-Benelux comparison promised by the seed.
First, EPREL remains heavily skewed toward a small set of large manufacturers. The top three brands control 37.73% of all listed models, and the top five 51.93% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). For installers, that usually means the broadest model families, spare-parts ecosystems and option depth are likely to sit with a short list of brands visible in the market index and filtered manufacturer catalog pages.
Second, model-count leadership is not the same as efficiency leadership. Daikin is the clear listing-volume leader at 24.05%, but Bosch records the highest average SCOP among the top five at 4.69, with Ariston close behind at 4.66 (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). A buyer screening purely by brand prominence can therefore miss stronger average efficiency values from smaller catalog footprints.
Third, type matters more than many brand-level comparisons imply. Air-water units form roughly half the whole dataset at 49.93%, and they average 4.54 SCOP, while the tiny water-water segment averages 6.15 from just 31 models (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation; type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation). Anyone comparing seasonal performance should benchmark within type, not across the whole registry.
Fourth, the corpus is insufficient for a refrigerant-led regional buying conclusion. No R290 or R32 subset data is returned here, so the brief’s expected finding that one bloc is more R290-sensitive than the other cannot be verified from this evidence (top_models / EPREL Public API via Househeating Pulse catalog). For that reason, any claim that the Baltics are more R290-heavy or that Benelux carries a broader premium refrigerant mix would be speculative.
For practical shortlist work in 2026, the safer route is to move from market structure into model filtering: start with the live EPREL catalog, then narrow by manufacturer, type, refrigerant, and climate context via the climate-fit tool. If budget framing is needed after that, the payback calculator and sizing calculator are better decision tools than raw brand share.
Sources
- EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation — snapshot 2026-07-07
- EPREL Public API via Househeating Pulse catalog — top_models, R290 — snapshot 2026-07-07
- EPREL Public API via Househeating Pulse catalog — top_models, R32 — snapshot 2026-07-07
- EPREL Public API · type aggregation — snapshot 2026-07-07
- Failed brand_detail probes shown in corpus: manufacturer slug not found — no snapshot date provided
Continue reading
- How to compare heat pump SCOP properly — Why type, climate and test conditions matter more than a single headline number
- R290 vs R32 heat pumps — A practical primer on refrigerant trade-offs, constraints and buyer questions
- Air-to-water vs air-to-air heat pumps — Where the installation, efficiency and comfort differences really sit
- How to shortlist heat pumps from EPREL — A step-by-step workflow using filters, leaderboards and sizing tools