OBJECTIVES: In 2006, the EUnetHTA project was launched. One of its main strategic objectives was to strengthen the link between HTA and health care policy making in the EU. Seven years after EUnetHTA establishment, the objective of this study was to compare HTA agencies’ assessments in France, Germany and UK, focusing on method and outcomes. METHODS: Scope of the study was all the products getting a positive opinion from CHMP during two years, starting at January 1rst, 2011. Comparison between assessments was made for products assessed by the three HTA agencies: IQWiG, NICE, and HAS. RESULTS: 87 drugs were included in this study. 11 (13%) have been assessed by the three agencies. Among these drugs, more than 50% (6) were cancer treatment. HAS was the first to assess drug in 6 cases (mean delay between CHMP positive opinion and assessment: 223 days), followed closely by IQWiG (242 days), then by NICE (354 days). IQWiG segmented the patient population defined by the manufacturer into different sub-populations in 6 assessments, HAS in 2, NICE never. NICE was the only agency who did not recommend a drug for cost-effectiveness reasons (2 assessments). In three assessments, IQWiG concluded that there was no benefit proven for the whole population; regarding the same drugs, HAS concluded there was minor improvement in actual benefit twice. CONCLUSIONS: Some major trends emerge in the assessments studied: use of indirect comparisons, added therapeutic value weighted by severity and frequency of side effects and uncertainty. Nevertheless, comparator choices, perception of clinical benefits and risks, budget impact and overall method still differ between the three HTA agencies studied, leading to different outcomes for drugs assessed.