BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, BEAM Plus and Chinese ESGB have been formally launched at different stages in the last twenty years. How well the certified and rated buildings compare with each other is always an interest of building designers and policy-makers. This paper presents a side-by-side comparison of energy use assessments of the five schemes. The comparisons are on the assessment method and criteria, default parameters, trade-offs allowed, performance scales, approved simulation tools, performance indicators and assessment results. Comparison results showed that all the five schemes are based on relative performance. It was also found that despite the variations in default parameters among the five schemes, market positions of certified buildings are comparable. LEED was found to be the most stringent and relatively less flexible in its assessment criteria. Nonetheless, the energy cost budget approach, adopted only by LEED, is able to fulfil emission reduction and cost saving objectives on the condition that a "fuel neutral" approach should be adopted. (c) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.