2026 Heat-Pump Brand Share in the Baltics vs Central Europe: who is winning on EPREL listings?

Baltics vs Central Europe: the 2026 EPREL picture in one chart

EPREL is not a sales register, but it is the clearest public map of declared product assortment currently available through the EU product database and its public interfaces. On 2026-06-06, the Househeating Pulse market snapshot counted 60,989 heat-pump models across 777 manufacturers (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). That breadth matters, because the question here is not who sold the most units, but who occupies the most shelf space in the registry.

One immediate constraint has to be stated plainly: the research corpus supplied here contains Europe-wide brand-share and refrigerant totals, plus national climate, price and subsidy context, but it does not contain country-level or region-level EPREL brand-share breakdowns for the Baltics versus Central Europe. So the registry excerpt available for this article does not record exact Baltic-vs-Central-Europe listing shares, top-3/top-5/top-10 concentration by region, national leading-brand dependence, regional refrigerant splits, or regional average SCOP by leading brand. Those figures cannot be fabricated.

What the corpus does show is the broader European listing hierarchy that any Baltic or Central European comparison sits inside. Across the full registry, Daikin Europe N.V. leads with 14,668 models and a 24.05% listing share, ahead of Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. at 5,575 models and 9.14%, and JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING EUROPE SAS, SUCURSAL EN ESPAÑA at 5,207 models and 8.54% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). Those three alone account for 41.73% of all listed models when their shares are added directly from the corpus (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).

That Europe-wide concentration is visible in the live EPREL catalog, in the brand directory at all manufacturers, and in the platform’s market index snapshot. It is the necessary baseline for any regional reading.

(brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation)

Which brands dominate each region, and how concentrated are listings?

The short answer from this corpus is that exact Baltic-versus-Central-Europe dominance cannot be measured because the underlying regional slices are not included. The data available here only supports a Europe-wide concentration reading.

Using the top-10 ranking in the corpus, the combined share of the top 3 brands is 41.73%, the top 5 reach 51.93%, and the top 10 reach 60.88% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). That means just ten manufacturers account for just over three-fifths of all declared models in the registry snapshot, while the remaining 767 manufacturers share the other 39.12% because the registry counts 777 manufacturers in total (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API; brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).

For installers comparing region-specific choice sets, that Europe-wide pattern suggests two things. First, any local market that is heavily exposed to Daikin Europe N.V., Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. or Bosch Thermotechnik GmbH is leaning into brands that already have deep EPREL assortment at continental scale (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). Second, even a market that looks fragmented locally may still be drawing from a Europe-wide registry where the top layer is quite concentrated.

The corpus does not allow a numeric ranking of “which brands are bigger in the Baltics than in Central Europe, or vice versa”. Nor does it identify exact regional skew gaps by percentage points. That would require country- or region-filtered brand-share probes not present here. Readers looking for a broader benchmark can use the leaderboards hub and the full manufacturer index, but the regional split itself is outside this dataset.

Country-by-country differences: where one brand still rules, and where shares fragment

Again, the corpus does not provide national brand-share tables, so it is not possible to identify which country in the comparison has the highest or lowest dependence on a single manufacturer by share of EPREL listings. The registry excerpt simply does not record that metric here.

What it does record is the operating context of the countries typically included in a Baltics-versus-Central-Europe discussion. The Baltic states all sit in the “colder” climate zone: Estonia has 4,474.47 heating degree days, Lithuania 4,423.05, and Latvia 4,407.08 (country_compare / Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register). By contrast, several Central European markets in the corpus sit in the “average” zone, including Austria at 3,309.19 heating degree days, Czechia at 3,539.76, Germany at 3,308.21, Slovakia at 3,035.92, and Poland at 3,706.42 (country_compare / Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register).

Electricity and gas pricing also differ materially. Estonia’s household electricity price is EUR 0.2303/kWh, Latvia’s is EUR 0.2452/kWh, and Lithuania’s is EUR 0.1955/kWh (country_compare / Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register). In selected Central European markets, electricity is higher in Austria at EUR 0.3272/kWh, Czechia at EUR 0.3217/kWh, and Germany at EUR 0.3869/kWh, but lower in Slovakia at EUR 0.1853/kWh and Hungary at EUR 0.1082/kWh (country_compare / Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register).

Those context differences matter when interpreting brand assortment, even if this corpus cannot directly tie them to listing concentration. A colder climate cluster with moderate electricity prices can reward brands with broad low-temperature lineups, while higher-electricity Central European markets may put more commercial pressure on high-SCOP products. For a broader cross-country context, the platform’s 32-country dashboard, country index and climate zones explainer are the relevant internal references.

Refrigerant mix: how R32, R290, and other chemistries map to regional brand presence

The strongest refrigerant signal in the corpus is Europe-wide, not regional. Of all declared refrigerants in the snapshot, R32 appears on 13,935 listings and R290 on 537 listings, while R410A appears on 1,896 listings and the lower-case variant R410a appears on 49 listings (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). Relative to the 60,989 total models in the snapshot, R32 accounts for 22.85% of all listed models and R290 for 0.88% (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API).

The market snapshot separately reports a natural-refrigerant share of 3.27% across the full index (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). The refrigerant reference table identifies R290 as propane, a natural refrigerant with GWP 0 and flammability class A3, while R32 is an HFC with GWP 771 and flammability class A2L (refrigerant_universe / IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes). The same reference table lists a phase-out date of 2027-01-01 for R32 in the cited schedule metadata, and 2025-01-01 for R410A (refrigerant_universe / IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes).

That regulatory context is relevant for product assortment, but the corpus does not provide refrigerant splits for the Baltics versus Central Europe, nor refrigerant breakdowns for individual leading brands in those regions. It is therefore not possible to say, with numbers, whether the Baltics are more R32-heavy or more R290-heavy than the Central European comparison set in this article.

Readers wanting to inspect current declared products by chemistry can use the R290 catalog filter, the refrigerants reference, or browse the wider heat-pump catalog. For policy background, the refrigerant discussion sits against the current EU F-gas framework and the public EPREL portal.

Efficiency signal: do the top-listed brands differ in average SCOP?

At Europe-wide level, yes. Among the top ten manufacturers by listing share, Bosch Thermotechnik GmbH shows the highest average SCOP at 4.69, followed by Ariston SpA at 4.66 and Vaillant GmbH at 4.54 (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). Daikin Europe N.V., despite by far the largest assortment footprint, averages 4.44, while Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. averages 4.51 and JOHNSON CONTROLS HITACHI AIR CONDITIONING EUROPE SAS, SUCURSAL EN ESPAÑA averages 4.18 (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).

Across the full market index, the average SCOP is 4.55 (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). That places Bosch’s top-brand average 0.14 points above the market average, Ariston’s 0.11 points above, and Hitachi’s 0.37 points below (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API; brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).

But the exact question in the brief asks for Baltic versus Central European average SCOP values of top brands, and the gap between them. This corpus does not contain those regional SCOP aggregates. So the only defensible answer is that regional SCOP differences cannot be quantified from the supplied data.

For readers benchmarking performance rather than assortment breadth, the relevant internal references are the top SCOP leaderboard, the more specific air-to-water SCOP leaderboard, and the methodology page, which explains how platform-wide metrics are computed.

What this means for buyers and installers tracking availability and assortment

The available evidence supports a cautious rather than sweeping reading.

First, the Europe-wide EPREL universe is large and still fairly top-heavy. One manufacturer, Daikin Europe N.V., accounts for 24.05% of all listed models, and the top five together account for 51.93% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). So any regional market may look diverse on paper while still depending heavily on a relatively small group of pan-European suppliers.

Second, refrigerant transition is visible, but incomplete. R32 is the dominant declared refrigerant in the snapshot at 13,935 listings and 22.85% of all models, while natural refrigerants remain a small minority at 3.27% of the market index overall (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). That does not tell a Baltic-versus-Central-Europe story on its own, but it does tell buyers that broad catalog availability still leans toward legacy HFC-based product families.

Third, cold-climate context in the Baltics is not marginal. Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia all exceed 4,400 heating degree days, versus 3,035.92 in Slovakia and 3,309.19 in Austria (country_compare / Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register). For specification work, that makes climate fit and seasonal performance at least as important as brand footprint. The platform’s climate-fit tool, sizing calculator and payback calculator are more useful for that decision than raw listing count alone.

Finally, this article’s central regional thesis cannot be fully proven from the current corpus because the necessary regional brand-share tables are absent. If the next data pull includes country-filtered EPREL brand distributions, it will be possible to test whether the Baltics are indeed more concentrated and whether Central Europe is more fragmented by brand and refrigerant mix. With the present evidence, the safe claim is narrower: Europe-wide EPREL listings are concentrated at the top, R32 remains dominant in declared refrigerants, and the Baltic operating context is colder than much of Central Europe.

Sources

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

Continue reading

• How to read EPREL heat-pump listings without confusing assortment for sales — A practical framework for interpreting model counts, variants and brand breadth.
• R290 vs R32 heat pumps: what the registry actually shows — Where propane is growing, where R32 still dominates, and what the trade-offs are.
• SCOP, noise and energy class: the three filters that matter most — A tighter way to shortlist products from a very large catalog.
• How to compare heat pumps across European countries — Climate, tariffs, subsidies and why country context changes the shortlist.