Criora

Comparing Locations

A single score answers “how risky is this location?” Comparison answers a harder question: “how risky is this location relative to somewhere I already understand?” The Teleport view places two locations side by side on the same axes so a score has context.

Where to find it

Once a location has a finished analysis, open it and switch to the Outlook tab. A Teleport card invites you to read your site against eight cities around the world. Click it (or the Teleport tab) to enter comparison mode at /location/teleport/<location-id>.

The card is only available after the risk pipeline completes for the home location; an incomplete or errored analysis hides the option.

The two sides: HERE and THERE

Every comparison has two slots:

  • HERE: the location you opened (the home site).
  • THERE: a target you pick from the side panel.

The panel offers two tabs:

TabWhat’s in it
Your placesOther locations you have already analyzed in your workspace
Around the worldEight predefined reference cities curated to span the major climate zones

Pick anything from either tab and the page renders the comparison immediately. If the target has not been analyzed yet, the pipeline runs first (“Adding location” → “Computing risk profile”). This usually takes a minute or two.

What you see

The comparison view has two sections.

Overview

Headline numbers, side by side:

  • Overall score (0-100) and the resulting letter rating (A++ to F) for both locations
  • Severity mix: a small pie of how many risks fall into Critical / High / Medium / Low / Very Low on each side

The deltas are visible at a glance: if your site has six critical risks and the comparison city has none, that is the most important thing to know, and it sits at the top.

By dimension

Dimension-by-dimension breakdown for the two site-level dimensions (Climate, Nature). For each dimension:

  • The dimension score on both sides
  • Matched risks: risk types that share the same severity band on both locations (these are the “you are not alone” data points)
  • Delta risks: risk types where the two locations differ, with the size of the gap surfaced as Δ

A high Δ on a single risk often points at the geographic feature driving the difference, coastline, altitude, climate zone, or a specific water-stress signal.

The eight reference cities

The “Around the world” tab ships with cities chosen to span the climate spectrum so any home site has at least one meaningful counterpart:

CityClimate zone (Köppen)What it represents
JakartaAfTropical, low-elevation, flood-prone megacity
PhoenixBWhHot desert, water stress, extreme heat
ReykjavikET adjacentPolar / subarctic, very low chronic climate exposure
SingaporeAfTropical city-state, marine and humidity exposure
DubaiBWhHot desert, coastal, sea-level rise
LagosAwTropical savanna, coastal megacity, governance signal
TokyoCfaTemperate, seismic and storm exposure
ManausAfEquatorial rainforest, riverine flood

Each reference city goes through the same analysis pipeline as your sites, so the comparison is genuinely apples-to-apples, not a hand-tuned benchmark.

ℹ️ Refresh cadence

The reference cities are admin-managed. When the underlying data or methodology changes (a new SLR scenario, an SPI revision), the cities are re-scored so comparisons stay current.

Reading a comparison

Three workflows cover most use cases:

  1. Pre-acquisition diligence: compare a candidate site against a city you already operate in. Same risks, same axes: you can see whether the new location is materially more exposed than your reference footprint.
  2. Portfolio framing: open your own most-exposed site and pair it with each of the eight cities in turn. The result is a quick risk envelope: where in the global climate spectrum does your worst location actually sit?
  3. Stakeholder narrative: a side-by-side with a well-known city makes “high water stress” or “low climate exposure” concrete in a way a single score cannot.