Search each box by a whole word from the name, then pick from the list. The comparison reads the indexed record of each — output, citations, depth of the cited record, how widely and how far the work is picked up, and how it ages.
It describes rather than ranks. No overall verdict is drawn: the two are usually of different sizes, most of the measures grow with size, and there is no single question a university comparison answers the way "where should this paper go" is answered for journals.
Reading the chart
The chart summarises six of the measures below. It is a profile, not a scoreboard: further out means more of that thing, never better.
Output — indexed articles attributed to the organisation. Citations — citations those articles have received. Depth — the peer-reviewed h-index, which describes the depth of the cited record rather than its recent average. Impact — the 2-year impact: citations in the last two years per citable item. This is the one axis that does not simply grow with size. Reach — how many distinct journals cite the work, i.e. how widely it is picked up. Breadth — how many distinct disciplines the organisation publishes in.
Each axis is scaled to the larger of the two on a log scale. Four of the six grow with size, so a large organisation beside a small one will look larger on most of them — that is the difference in scale being shown, not a difference in quality.
