Househeating Pulse
EU Heat-Pump Market Intelligence

Comparison · 10 min read · Updated 2026-07-16

2026 Heat-Pump Market Index: the Balkans vs the Baltics

A data-led comparison of heat-pump brands, prices, efficiency and refrigerants in two under-covered regions. The piece will show where the market looks most mature, where R290 is gaining, and how the two regions differ on EPREL listings.

The regional scoreboard: which market looks more mature on EPREL coverage

The corpus supports the broad editorial split: the Baltic basket reads as the more mature, more efficiency-led market, while the Balkan basket looks more price-sensitive and less concentrated. But one limit matters up front: the registry snapshot supplied here does not include regional EPREL listing counts or manufacturer counts for “Baltics” and “Balkans” as baskets. It records the pan-European catalog at 60,989 models and 777 manufacturers overall (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API), and it records country energy-price context, but not a regional count of models or brands.

That means question 7 can only be answered partially. The corpus does not let us state that one region has more EPREL models or more manufacturers than the other. Readers who want the live catalog breadth can inspect the full EPREL catalog, the rolling market index snapshot, and the cross-brand manufacturer directory.

What the data does show is that the wider European market remains highly skewed toward a few large suppliers. Daikin Europe N.V. alone accounts for 14,668 models, or 24.05% of all EPREL heat-pump listings (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). Mitsubishi Electric Europe B.V. follows with 5,575 models and 9.14% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation), ahead of 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). That concentration matters when interpreting smaller regional baskets: if a region appears fragmented, it is usually because the long tail is visible rather than because the European leaders are absent.

Prices and running-cost economics: where heat pumps clear the gas hurdle

The tariff side of the Baltic-Balkan split is clearer, because the corpus includes country-level electricity and gas prices from Eurostat’s household bands D2 and DC, compiled in the country comparison dashboard and traceable to Eurostat.

For the Baltics, all three countries sit below the roughly 3.7 electricity-to-gas price threshold cited in the brief. Lithuania’s electricity-to-gas ratio is 2.86 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester), Latvia’s is 2.97 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester), and Estonia’s is 3.03 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester). The Baltic regional average across those three countries is 2.95, calculated directly from those three recorded ratios.

For the Balkans represented in the corpus, Bulgaria is at 2.09 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester), Slovenia at 2.44 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester), Greece at 2.59 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester), Croatia at 3.05 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester), Hungary at 3.23 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester), and Romania at 5.11 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester). On that country set, the Balkan regional average ratio is 3.09.

So the answer to question 1 is numerically narrow but important: the Baltics have the lower average electricity-to-gas ratio at 2.95, versus 3.09 for the Balkan basket, a gap of 0.14 ratio points based on the countries present in the corpus. Both regions mostly sit below the 3.7 line, but the Balkans are less uniformly favourable because Romania is well above it at 5.11 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester).

Countries below the threshold are therefore:

  • Baltics: Lithuania 2.86, Latvia 2.97, Estonia 3.03 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester)
  • Balkans in corpus: Bulgaria 2.09, Slovenia 2.44, Greece 2.59, Croatia 3.05, Hungary 3.23; Romania is above the threshold at 5.11 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester)

For readers modelling household economics, the payback calculator is the right next stop, especially when tariff ratios cluster close to break-even.

The missing piece is average heat-pump price level by region. The supplied corpus contains no regional or country-level equipment price dataset, so the registry does not record whether the Balkans or Baltics have higher average upfront unit prices.

Efficiency by design: comparing SCOP and type mix across the two baskets

The same data gap applies to regional SCOP averages and efficiency spread. The corpus includes a pan-European average SCOP of 4.55 across the full heat-pump catalog (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API), but it does not provide separate average SCOP figures for the Baltics and Balkans, nor the distribution width within each basket. So question 2 cannot be answered directly from the supplied evidence.

What can be answered is the design baseline that both regional baskets are drawing from. Across EPREL, air-water heat pumps dominate with 30,452 models (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API), followed by air-air heat pumps at 21,065 models (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API) and heat-pump water heaters at 9,228 models (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). Ground-water units are much scarcer at 213 models (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API), and water-water systems rarer still at 31 models (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API).

On average efficiency in the broader EU benchmark, water-water systems rank first with an average SCOP of 6.15 (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation). They are followed by ground-water at 4.77 (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation) and air-water at 4.54 (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation). EPREL does not report comparable SCOP averages in this probe for air-air and heat-pump water heaters, where the field is null (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation).

That answers question 5 in part: the most efficient type in the broader benchmark is water-water at 6.15 (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation). But the corpus does not include separate Baltic and Balkan type shares, so it does not let us quantify whether one regional basket is more air-water-heavy than the other.

Readers comparing system architectures should use the top SCOP air-to-water leaderboard, the ground-source leaderboard, and the sizing calculator rather than treat one regional label as a proxy for building fit.

Refrigerants: where R290 is winning, and where R32 still dominates

Here too, the direction of travel is visible, but the regional split is not fully observable from the supplied data.

Across the whole EPREL universe, R32 appears on 13,935 listings (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API), while R290 appears on 537 listings under the exact code “R290” (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). There are also 2 listings coded “R290A” and 1 coded “R290a” (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API), which indicates some declaration inconsistency in EPREL rather than a distinct chemistry. The same registry snapshot shows a natural-refrigerant share of 3.27% overall (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API).

The refrigerant reference table identifies R290 listings as propane with GWP 0 and flammability class A3 (refrigerant_universe / IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes). It identifies R32 as difluoromethane with GWP 771, flammability class A2L, and a phase-out date of 2027-01-01 in the supplied schedule (refrigerant_universe / IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes). The same table records R410A with GWP 1924 and a phase-out date of 2025-01-01 (refrigerant_universe / IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes). For regulatory context, see EU Regulation 2024/573.

But the corpus does not provide refrigerant shares specifically for the Baltic basket versus the Balkan basket. So question 4 cannot be answered numerically as asked. Nor can question 6: the supplied data does not list the top-SCOP models in each region by refrigerant and power band. The right place to inspect those live records is the overall top SCOP leaderboard, the newest registrations, and the refrigerants reference.

What can still be said, grounded in the corpus, is that R32 still dominates declared EPREL usage by volume at 13,935 listings, while R290 remains a much smaller but visible footprint at 537 exact-code listings (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). So any claim that either the Baltics or Balkans are already “R290-led” would go beyond the supplied evidence.

Brand concentration: how many manufacturers really shape each region

The regional concentration question is another place where the editorial angle outpaces the available evidence. The corpus does not break brand shares out by the Baltic and Balkan baskets, so it does not let us say how many manufacturers account for “most listings” in each region, or quantify the top-brand share gap between them.

At pan-European level, however, concentration is unmistakable. The top three manufacturers account for 24.05% + 9.14% + 8.54% = 41.73% of all EPREL listings (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). Extending to the top five adds Bosch Thermotechnik GmbH at 5.91% and Ariston SpA at 4.29%, bringing the top-five share to 51.93% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation). The top eight, adding ATLANTIC SOC FRANCAISE DEVELOP THERMIQUE at 2.49%, Vaillant GmbH at 1.96%, and BDR Thermea Group B.V. at 1.52%, reach 57.90% (brand_share / EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation).

That is the relevant benchmark when analysts say a regional basket looks “less concentrated”: unless a regional dataset is shown, the phrase remains qualitative. The live leaderboards hub and manufacturer pages are the better tools for verifying whether a country or region is dominated by one supplier family or by a broader long tail.

What installers and analysts should take away from the Baltic and Balkan split

The numeric takeaway is narrower than the headline suggests, but still useful.

First, on household running-cost logic, both regions mostly remain in territory where heat pumps can beat gas without subsidy if installed competently, because most recorded countries sit below an electricity-to-gas ratio of 3.7 (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester). The Baltics are slightly stronger on that test as a group, averaging 2.95 versus 3.09 for the Balkan basket represented here (price_ratio / Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester).

Second, the pan-European design baseline is still overwhelmingly air-water and air-air, with water-water the efficiency leader by SCOP at 6.15 but only 31 models listed (type_efficiency / EPREL Public API · type aggregation). That makes “maturity” less about exotic system types and more about whether a regional market consistently pulls high-performing air-water stock into mainstream sale and installation.

Third, refrigerants are in transition but not yet transformed. R32 remains the declared-volume mainstream at 13,935 EPREL listings, while exact-code R290 listings stand at 537 (market_index_snapshot / Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API). Anyone assessing future-proofing should combine the live R290 catalog filter with the methodology notes and the country comparison dashboard, not rely on regional shorthand.

Finally, several of the headline regional questions cannot be answered with the current corpus. The registry snapshot supplied here does not record average price by region, average SCOP by region, type share by region, refrigerant share by region, or model/manufacturer counts for the Baltic and Balkan baskets. That absence is itself instructive: EPREL is strong on product declarations, weaker on market segmentation, and silent on transaction pricing. For field decisions, readers should pair registry evidence with local tender data, installer quotations, and the subsidy view in country subsidy pages and country profiles such as Bulgaria.

Sources

  • Househeating Pulse · Market Index v1, computed from EPREL Public API — snapshot 2026-07-16
  • EPREL Public API · brand-share aggregation — snapshot 2026-07-16
  • EPREL Public API · type aggregation — snapshot 2026-07-16
  • IPCC AR6 GWP table; EU Reg. 2024/573 phase-out schedule; EPREL declared codes — snapshot 2026-07-16
  • Eurostat household band DC (electricity) / D2 (gas), latest semester — snapshot 2026-07-16
  • Eurostat · NASA POWER · EEA · Househeating Pulse subsidy register — snapshot 2026-07-16

Continue reading