The results of four macrophyte assessment methods (French Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Riviere, German Reference Index, British Mean Trophic Rank and Dutch Macrophyte Score) were compared, based on plant survey data of medium-sized lowland streams in Central Europe. To intercalibrate the good quality class boundaries two alternative methods were applied: direct comparison and the use of "common metrics". While the French and British methods were highly related (R-2 > 0.75), the German RI showed less (0.20 < R-2 < 0.55) and the Dutch DMS least correlation (R-2 < 0.10) with other methods. Of 70 macrophyte metrics tested only Ellenberg_N was considerably related to three of the national assessment methods, thus representing a potential common metric for intercalibration. Comparison of quality class boundaries via regression analysis using both intercalibration approaches revealed major differences between classifications of the French, German and British methods, which are, in addition, related in a nonlinear way.