Compare Countries
Select 2–4 countries to compare risk indicators side by side.
How should country risk be compared?
Compare countries on a consistent set of indicators rather than on a single ranking. [S/1] places governance, corruption, humanitarian risk, sanctions exposure, conflict intensity, financial-crime controls, press freedom, environmental performance, and labour signals side by side. The composite score is a triage aid: it shows where the evidence points to greater operating risk, while the individual dimensions explain why two markets with similar totals may require different controls.
What does a higher risk score mean?
A higher composite score indicates stronger evidence of exposure across the selected dimensions. It does not mean every company in that country is high risk. Use the country result to set the depth of supplier due diligence, monitoring, contractual safeguards, and escalation—not to make an automatic counterparty decision.
Which differences matter most?
Focus on the dimensions relevant to the decision. Procurement teams may prioritise sanctions, forced-labour, corruption, and conflict exposure; market-entry teams may place more weight on governance, financial-crime controls, and institutional resilience. Open each country profile to inspect the source, observation date, limitations, and narrative explanation behind the number.
Country comparison is the first layer. Before onboarding or approving a transaction, run an entity intelligence brief to examine the named counterparty and its ownership network.