2026 EPREL heat-pump inverter share in Europe: which markets and brands lead

How common is inverter control in EPREL heat-pump listings?

The short answer is that the corpus does not contain a usable inverter flag, inverter proxy count, or inverter/non-inverter split. EPREL is the underlying registry for this catalogue, but in the data supplied here there is no dedicated field for inverter control, and no derived probe that tags listings as inverter or non-inverter. That means the overall inverter share, and the sample size behind it, cannot be stated from this corpus without fabrication.

What can be stated is the size of the broader EPREL heat-pump universe being discussed: the snapshot covers 60,989 models from 777 manufacturers as of 2026-06-24 (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). Readers can inspect that broader population in the live EPREL heat-pump catalog and the current market index snapshot.

This matters because any claim about “inverter share in Europe” depends entirely on how inverter status is identified. In this corpus, the registry exposes model-level performance, brand, type, refrigerant and energy-class aggregates, but the registry does not record an inverter field here. A cautious market read is therefore the only defensible one.

For context, the total EPREL snapshot is dominated by air-water models at 30,452 listings and air-air models at 21,065 listings, with hp-water-heater at 9,228, ground-water at 213 and water-water at 31 (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). Any future inverter analysis would also need to control for type mix, because type composition alone can distort average efficiency.

Which countries lead and lag on inverter share?

This question also cannot be answered numerically from the corpus as provided. There is no country-by-inverter-share table, and there is no country-level model count table for EPREL heat pumps in the JSON. The supplied country comparison dashboard data covers energy prices, heating degree days, grid intensity and subsidy availability across 32 countries, not EPREL inverter penetration.

So the registry corpus here does not support ranking countries by highest or lowest inverter share, nor does it support giving each country’s contributing model count.

What the country dataset does show is the surrounding market context that would matter if such a ranking were available. For example, Austria has electricity at €0.3272/kWh, gas at €0.1221/kWh, 3,309.19 heating degree days, and a maximum listed subsidy of €23,000 (country_compare / Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register). Belgium shows €0.3499/kWh electricity, €0.0898/kWh gas, 2,934.26 heating degree days, and a maximum listed subsidy of €4,000 (country_compare / Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register). Czechia shows €0.3217/kWh electricity, €0.0961/kWh gas, 3,539.76 heating degree days, and up to €4,900 in listed support across 2 active subsidies (country_compare / Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register).

Those figures can help explain why model mixes differ across countries, but they are not evidence of inverter share. Readers looking for country context rather than inverter penetration can use the country index, climate zones explainer, and subsidy index.

Which brands rely on inverter models the most?

Again, the corpus does not contain brand-level inverter tagging, so it cannot support a ranking of manufacturers by inverter share within their portfolios. There is no defensible way to say which brands “rely on inverter models the most” from the supplied JSON alone.

What can be shown is which manufacturers dominate the EPREL heat-pump listing base overall. That matters because any eventual inverter analysis will be heavily shaped by the largest registrants.

The practical point is that a brand-level inverter ranking would need explicit denominator control. A manufacturer with many air-air models may not be comparable with one focused on air-water models, and the corpus does not provide the inverter tag needed to normalise that.

Readers comparing specific manufacturers can use the full manufacturers index and each brand profile page for live catalogue drill-down.

Do inverter models outperform non-inverter models on efficiency?

This cannot be answered directly from the corpus. There is no inverter/non-inverter grouping, so average SCOP for inverter-tagged versus non-inverter models is unavailable. The registry data here therefore does not show whether any SCOP gap exists, whether it is statistically meaningful, or even how many models would sit in each group.

What the corpus does show is the overall average SCOP of 4.55 across the market snapshot (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API), plus strong variation by type:

For hp-water-heater and air-air, the average SCOP field is null in this corpus (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation), so even type-level efficiency comparisons are incomplete.

The same limitation applies to price. The corpus contains no price field and no price-level proxy split by inverter status, so the question of whether inverter-tagged models are more expensive cannot be answered here. Efficiency proxies that are available include energy class, SCOP, power and outdoor noise, but none are grouped by inverter status in the supplied data. Readers who need sizing or economics rather than an unavailable inverter split can use the sizing calculator and payback calculator.

A glance at the top SCOP leaderboards shows why type control matters. The overall leaders include Risch Kälte- und Klimatechnik GmbH OH I 4esr TWW W/W at SCOP 7.0 (top_models / EPREL Public API via Househeating Pulse catalog), Master Therm tepelná čerpadla s.r.o. AQ30I-0WW at 6.97 (top_models / EPREL Public API via Househeating Pulse catalog), and Waterkotte GmbH EcoTouch DS 5034.5 T (water/water) at 6.97 (top_models / EPREL Public API via Househeating Pulse catalog). Those are notable models, but they are not evidence of inverter performance unless the registry explicitly tags them as such.

What does the refrigerant mix look like in inverter vs non-inverter listings?

This question cannot be answered from the corpus because the refrigerant data is not split by inverter status. There is no groupwise table for inverter-tagged versus non-inverter models, so it is impossible to say whether the mix differs materially between the two.

What can be stated is the refrigerant mix for the listed EPREL universe where refrigerant codes are declared. The largest declared refrigerant is R32 with 13,935 listings (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API), followed by R410A with 1,896 listings and R410a with 49 listings under a separate spelling variant (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). R290 appears in 537 listings, with additional spelling variants R290A at 2 and R290a at 1 (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API).

The market snapshot puts the overall natural refrigerant share at 3.27% (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). In the refrigerant reference table, R290 is classified as a natural refrigerant with GWP 0, while R32 is an HFC with GWP 771 and a listed phase-out date of 2027-01-01 in the supplied policy table (refrigerant_universe / IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes). R410A is listed with GWP 1924 and a phase-out date of 2025-01-01 in that same reference table (refrigerant_universe / IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes).

Readers who want to inspect live product pages can browse R32 heat pumps, R290 heat pumps, or the broader refrigerants reference. For the underlying policy framework, the relevant public sources are the EPREL portal and the EU’s F-gas regulation page.

How strong is the EPREL sample, and where should readers be cautious?

The sample is strong for describing the overall EPREL heat-pump listing universe but weak for the specific inverter question asked here.

On the strong side, the corpus covers 60,989 models and 777 manufacturers in a dated snapshot (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). It also gives robust brand concentration data: the top three manufacturers alone account for 24.05%, 9.14% and 8.54% of listings respectively (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). That is enough to say the catalogue is not evenly distributed across brands.

But for inverter comparisons, there are three hard limits:

1. No inverter field or derived inverter flag is present in the supplied corpus. That blocks every requested share, ranking and performance split by inverter status.

2. Country-level EPREL counts are missing. The country dataset is contextual, not a country listing census.

3. Some performance fields are incomplete even before any inverter split. For example, average SCOP is null for air-air and hp-water-heater in the type aggregation (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation).

That means readers should not treat any branding, refrigerant or efficiency pattern in this article as a proxy for inverter adoption. The data can support statements about the broader catalogue; it cannot support a ranked inverter-market map.

A better framing is that EPREL remains very useful for catalogue intelligence, especially through the leaderboard hub, methodology notes, and the live full catalog. But until a dedicated inverter field or a clearly documented text-parsing proxy is added, “which markets and brands lead on inverter control” remains only partially observable in this dataset.

Sources

• Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API — snapshot date 2026-06-24
• EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation — snapshot date 2026-06-24
• Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register — snapshot date 2026-06-24
• EPREL Public API · type aggregation — snapshot date 2026-06-24
• IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes — snapshot date 2026-06-24
• EPREL Public API via Househeating Pulse catalog — snapshot date 2026-06-24

Continue reading

• Heat pump market index — A broader read on catalogue size, brand concentration and efficiency benchmarks.
• How to compare heat-pump SCOP properly — Why type, climate and test conditions matter more than a headline number.
• R290 vs R32 heat pumps — A practical primer on refrigerant trade-offs, regulation and availability.
• How to use EPREL for heat-pump research — What the registry is good at, and where product-level data still runs thin.