OBJECTIVES: We aimed to quantitatively segment the health technology assessment (HTA) agencies into functional archetypes to sort countries with similar functional objectives and process into one group. METHODS: Through literature search, we developed a Likert scale comprising 77 question from 18 best practice principles, and 6 functional domains. Each question is marked on a scale of 0-5, with higher score (4 or 5) indicating best practice/ease of accession and low score (0 or 1) indicating lack of guidance/difficulty in accession. Our scale includes the key attributes of HTA process, i.e. general submission process, pharmacoeconomics, pricing, and evidence requirements under six functional domains: transparency, process, technical, equity, speed and implementation. RESULTS: We evaluated HTA guidelines and process of 66 HTA agencies worldwide, followed by scoring and weighted analysis. Using univariate analysis on total weighted score, we segregated the dataset into five percentiles, with definition reflecting functional objectives: 0-25% (Price Managers), 26-50% (Formulary Managers), 51-75% (Cost Advisors), 76-90% (Value Appraisers), and 91-100% (Value Implementers). Characteristically, Price Managers (eg. Singapore, India, Hong Kong) are free pricing markets, where setting drug price is the only hurdle in market access. Formulary Managers (eg. US, China) control drug price based on budget and regulatory approval. Cost Advisors (eg. Brazil, Mexico) are emerging HTA agencies that use HTA to advice cost. Value Appraisers (eg. South Korea, New Zealand) perform HTA on regular basis, but regional requirements overcome implementation of findings to drug price and reimbursement. Value implementers (eg. England, Canada, Germany) are the most mature markets, with pay for performance measures being the primary functional objective. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis provides a new approach to quantitatively benchmark and group HTA agencies into archetypes based on functional objectives and local priorities. Analysis at domain and principle level helps mapping the similarity of requirements by each archetype, enabling evidence-based launch planning.