OBJECTIVES: France and Germany could be considered similar payer archetypes – i.e. assessing product value and benefit by comparing clinical evidence between similar products. In Germany, the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) uses a six-point scale to assess level of added benefit (major through to reduced benefit) whereas the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) in France utilises a five-point scale ranging from major improvement (ASMR I) to no improvement (ASMR V) in actual benefit. We sought to evaluate whether benefit assessments for melanoma products in both countries resulted in comparable outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of benefit assessment of melanoma products published by the G-BA and HAS between March 2014 and March 2019. HTA reports were accessed through the agencies’ website. Outcome data (level of added benefit for Germany and ASMR ratings for France) and underlying rationale for the same melanoma products were subjected to a content analysis. RESULTS: In Germany, a total of 25 decisions were extracted from 18 assessments. The additional benefit was rated ‘considerable’ in 8 cases (32%), minor in 1 (4%) and a hint of unquantifiable in 1 (4%). In most cases, however, the G-BA assigned ‘no additional benefit proven’ (15; 60%). Of the 8 treatments that received considerable additional benefit by the G-BA, HAS assigned ASMR ratings of III (3 cases), IV (2 cases) and ‘not applicable’, partly due to a lack of relevant comparative data (2 cases). One product was not assessed by HAS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being of a similar payer archetype, there are noteworthy differences in benefit assessment outcomes by the German and French HTA agencies for melanoma products. Of the 8 indications that obtained a ‘considerable’ added benefit by the G-BA, there were zero that received either an ASMR I or II from HAS with only three receiving an ASMR III.