CEFR to CLB: The Reference Chart for Canadian and European Language Levels
The CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) is the six-level scale — A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 — published by the Council of Europe in 2001 and expanded by the CEFR Companion Volume in 2018/2020. It describes what a person can actually do in a language, grouped into three bands: Basic User (A1-A2), Independent User (B1-B2), and Proficient User (C1-C2). It's the reference scale behind the DELF, DALF, TCF, and TEF, and it underpins language education and certification across Europe.
The CLB (Canadian Language Benchmarks) — known in French as the NCLC — is Canada's own reference scale for English and French as an additional language. Developed and maintained by the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks, it runs from CLB 1 to CLB 12 and underlies most of Canada's economic immigration system (including Express Entry), settlement and language-training services, and a large share of federal and provincial language assessment.
For anyone applying through Express Entry, working with a federal public service bilingual requirement, or simply trying to translate a European qualification (a DELF B2, say) into Canadian terms, the natural question is: what CLB score equals what CEFR level? The two scales were built independently, by different institutions, for different purposes — so there's no automatic conversion. A rigorous alignment study does exist and is detailed below, but it produces a documented, nuanced correspondence, not a strict 1:1 conversion. That nuance — too often flattened by immigration-consulting sites into a clean « CLB 7 = B2 » — is exactly what this page sets out to preserve.
The CLB ↔ CEFR equivalency chart
The chart below reflects the correspondence established in North & Piccardo (2019), Aligning the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) — the only methodologically documented alignment study between the two scales to date. The study's methodology is summarised further down, and the full citation appears in the bibliography.
| CLB | CEFR level | Documented nuance |
|---|---|---|
| CLB 12 | C2 | Direct match in the report's final summary table. |
| CLB 11 | C1 | Direct match in the report's final summary table. |
| CLB 10 | C1 | Flagged as an open question in the report's provisional analysis table before being settled as C1 without reservation in the final table. |
| CLB 9 | B2+ (between B2 and C1) | The report's own language: « CLB/NCLC 9 is between B2 and C1, that is to say B2+. » Note that the report's clean final summary table simplifies this to plain « B2 » — the narrative discussion is where the B2+ nuance lives. We publish the fuller version deliberately. |
| CLB 8 | B2 (full, no reservation) | « CLB/NCLC 8 is B2. » |
| CLB 7 | B1+ (transitional, not full B2) | « Benchmark 7 is B1+: a very strong B1. » The report adds that even though « Benchmark 7 may have elements of B2 », that doesn't make it B2 — B1+ is described as « a transition to B2 », not B2 itself. As with CLB 9 above, the report's clean final summary table simplifies this to plain « B1 »; the « + » lives in the narrative discussion, not the table. |
| CLB 6 | B1 | Grouped under B1 in the final table. |
| CLB 5 | B1 | One of the levels the authors revisit directly when finalizing their conclusions. |
| CLB 4 | A2 | Direct match in the report's final summary table. |
| CLB 3 | A2 | One of the levels the authors revisit directly when finalizing their conclusions — described as a genuinely doubtful case, more so than CLB 7 (see the explanation below). |
| CLB 2 | A1 | Direct match in the report's final summary table. |
| CLB 1 | Pre-A1 (below CEFR A1) | Direct match in the report's final summary table. |
Correspondence based on: North, B. & Piccardo, E. (2019). Aligning the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Research report, Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. Read the full report (PDF)
In the authors' own words: « one should not necessarily expect a simple, proportional relationship between the two sets of levels. » Below CLB 7/B1+, that relationship gets more complex still — the report notes that several CEFR levels below this point correspond to more than one CLB benchmark (B1 spans CLB 5, 6 and 7; A2 spans CLB 3 and 4), though not all of them do: A1 and Pre-A1 each map to a single CLB level (2 and 1, respectively).
Quotes on this page are given without page numbers by design: anyone wanting to locate a quote in context can search the PDF directly for the quoted phrase.
The nuance explained: why « CLB 7 = CEFR B2 » is a misleading shortcut
Search « CLB 7 CEFR » and most immigration-consulting sites will tell you CLB 7 equals CEFR B2. It's an understandable shortcut — B2 is the level most people have heard of, since it's often the bar for European university admission or certain jobs — but it isn't what the source study actually says.
According to North & Piccardo (2019), CLB 7 corresponds to B1+ — described literally as « a very strong B1 »: a transitional level that carries some B2 characteristics without being a fully realized B2. Full B2 doesn't start, per this same study, until CLB 8 (« CLB/NCLC 8 is B2 »), and the report goes further still, describing CLB 9 as sitting « between B2 and C1, that is to say B2+. » The gap between « B1+ » and « B2 » isn't cosmetic: someone assessed at CLB 7 is, by the very definition of B1+, on the way to B2 — not there yet. Treating the two as interchangeable can lead someone to overestimate their standing against a genuine B2 requirement (European university admission, certain professional contexts), or conversely make a CLB 7 result look equivalent to a DELF B2 to an employer or institution when the source behind that comparison says otherwise.
This isn't a pedantic distinction — it comes from the most authoritative source available on this exact question. Brian North, co-author of the CLB-CEFR alignment study, is also a co-author of the CEFR Companion Volume published by the Council of Europe — together with Enrica Piccardo (his co-author on the CLB-CEFR alignment itself) and Tim Goodier (Council of Europe, 2018/2020). In other words, the people who produced the CLB↔CEFR alignment are, for one of them at least, also co-authors of the very CEFR Companion Volume the alignment is measured against — a level of authority no commercial conversion chart can claim. Publishing their nuance faithfully (« B1+ », not « B2 »; « B2+ », not a flat « B2 ») rather than flattening it is precisely what separates a reference resource from a marketing chart.
Beyond CLB 7/8/9, the report is upfront that the correspondence gets more complex below CLB 7: several CEFR levels are each linked to more than one CLB benchmark (B1 alone spans CLB 5, 6, and 7), and the authors specifically revisit CLB 3, 5, and 7 when finalizing their conclusions. That revisiting isn't uniform, though — the report calls the case for CLB 7 « relatively clear » on its way to B1+, while it expresses real doubt about whether CLB 3's performance standard actually represents A2. Publishing a « clean » chart that erased these differences in degree would hide uncertainty the authors themselves document carefully.
Study methodology
North & Piccardo (2019) combined a content analysis — mapping each framework's descriptors against the other — with a two-day cross-linguistic benchmarking workshop involving 35 participants, who rated CEFR speaking samples against CLB criteria and vice versa. Ratings were analyzed using Multi-Faceted Rasch Measurement (MFRM, via FACETS software), supplemented by a writing-sample task (Cambridge and CIEP materials). In the spirit of not flattening this page's own nuance: the strongest correlation reported for that writing task, 0.94-0.95, is a pooled figure across combined ratings — individual sample-level correlations were more modest, in the 0.63-0.92 range, with at least one sample as low as 0.38. Both figures are cited here rather than leading with only the most favourable number.
Practical applications
Express Entry and economic immigration
The thresholds below are drawn directly from IRCC (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada).
| Express Entry program | Official CLB requirement | What that means in CEFR (via North & Piccardo 2019) |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Skilled Worker Program — first official language | CLB 7 minimum across all 4 abilities | B1+ (transitional toward B2, not a full B2) |
| Federal Skilled Worker Program — second official language | CLB 5 minimum across all 4 abilities, for second-language points (an IRCC bulletin confirms candidates below this « cannot be awarded points for second official language proficiency ») | B1 |
| Canadian Experience Class — TEER 0 or 1 occupations | CLB 7 across all 4 abilities | B1+ |
| Canadian Experience Class — TEER 2 or 3 occupations | CLB 5 across all 4 abilities | B1 |
| Federal Skilled Trades Program — speaking and listening | CLB 5 | B1 |
| Federal Skilled Trades Program — reading and writing | CLB 4 | A2 |
The key takeaway: None of the minimum eligibility thresholds across the three main federal Express Entry programs reaches a full CEFR B2 under this correspondence — the highest of them (CLB 7) lines up with a transitional B1+. That doesn't mean higher levels don't matter: Express Entry's Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) awards more points for higher CLB scores, so scoring above the minimum — CLB 8 for a full B2, CLB 9 for B2+, CLB 10 or 11 for C1, CLB 12 for C2 — improves a profile's competitiveness even though it isn't required just to qualify. Eligibility and competitiveness are two different things, and this page is not a substitute for checking exact, current thresholds directly on canada.ca before submitting an application.
Federal public service (Levels A / B / C / E)
The Canadian federal public service assesses second-language proficiency (English or French) through the Second Language Evaluation (SLE), run by the Public Service Commission of Canada, on its own four-tier scale: A (lowest), B, C, and E (exemption — the highest), with results below Level A classified as X. These levels determine eligibility for bilingual public service positions.
No official published correspondence between Levels A/B/C/E and the CEFR (or the CLB) was found on the Public Service Commission's official pages (see the bibliography). That's not an oversight on our part — the Commission simply doesn't appear to publish a CEFR conversion table. Any « Level C = C1 »-style claim you might see elsewhere is not officially sourced and should be treated with caution. This is a gap this page states plainly rather than fills in with a guess.
Quebec and francization — a third scale
Quebec doesn't use the CLB for its own francization and immigration programs — it has its own scale, the Échelle québécoise des niveaux de compétence en français (Quebec Scale of French Proficiency Levels), also running 12 levels across three stages (beginner: 1-4; intermediate: 5-8; advanced: 9-12). This is likely more relevant to French-speaking readers, and we cover it here mainly so English-speaking readers researching Quebec-specific immigration aren't caught off guard by a third system.
Unlike the CLB, Quebec's scale has a direct, officially published correspondence with the CEFR:
| Échelle québécoise level | CEFR level |
|---|---|
| Levels 1-2 | A1 |
| Level 3 | A2 |
| Level 4 | A2 |
| Levels 5-6 | B1 |
| Levels 7-8 | B2 |
| Levels 9-10 | C1 |
| Levels 11-12 | C2 |
Source: Government of Quebec, PSTQ correspondence table (Programme de sélection des travailleurs qualifiés), dated November 29, 2024 — French only. Official PDF
No official correspondence between Quebec's scale and the CLB was found either — the two Canadian scales (federal and Quebec) each map separately onto the CEFR, without a confirmed official bridge between them.
Frequently asked questions
What CEFR level is CLB 7?
CLB 7 corresponds to B1+ — described by the source study (North & Piccardo, 2019) as « a very strong B1 », transitional toward B2 but not a full B2. Full B2 starts at CLB 8.
Is CLB the same as CEFR?
No. They're independently developed scales — the CEFR by the Council of Europe for the European context, the CLB by the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks for Canada. A serious alignment study (North & Piccardo, 2019) documents a correspondence between them, but it isn't a strict 1:1 conversion: several CLB levels can map to a single CEFR level, and the study's authors themselves flag specific levels (CLB 3, 5, and 7) as the hardest to pin down precisely.
What CLB level do I need for Express Entry?
It depends on the program. The most commonly cited threshold — CLB 7, required for example under the Federal Skilled Worker Program's first official language or the Canadian Experience Class for TEER 0/1 occupations — corresponds to B1+, not a full B2. CLB 5, required for some other categories, corresponds to B1. These thresholds change, so always confirm the current version on canada.ca before applying.
Does CLB 8 equal CEFR B2 exactly?
Yes — this is one of the clearest points in the source study: « CLB/NCLC 8 is B2 », without the reservation that applies to CLB 7.
Is CLB 9 B2 or C1?
Neither cleanly — North & Piccardo (2019) place it in between: « CLB/NCLC 9 is between B2 and C1, that is to say B2+. » The study's own summary table simplifies this to plain « B2 », but its detailed discussion is more precise: CLB 9 is best read as B2+.
Is there an official CLB or CEFR equivalency for federal public service language levels (A/B/C/E)?
No official published correspondence between the Public Service Commission of Canada's A/B/C/E levels and the CEFR (or the CLB) has been identified. Treat any such comparison found elsewhere as unofficial.
Related
Sources
- North, B. & Piccardo, E. (2019). Aligning the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). Research report, Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. https://www.language.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Aligning-the-CLB-and-CEFR.pdf
- Council of Europe (2018/2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment — Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Authors: B. North, E. Piccardo, T. Goodier. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
- Council of Europe. Table 1 (CEFR 3.3) — Common Reference Levels, global scale (official English version). https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale
- IRCC. Express Entry: Language test results (CLB thresholds by program). https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/express-entry/documents/language-test.html
- IRCC. Federal skilled workers selection criteria: Official language proficiency (operational bulletin). https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/standard-requirements/language-requirements/federal-skilled-workers-selection-criteria-official-proficiency.html
- Public Service Commission of Canada. Second language testing for the public service. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/second-language-testing-public-service.html
- Public Service Commission of Canada. Second Language Evaluation — Reading comprehension test. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-service-commission/services/second-language-testing-public-service/managers/sle-reading.html
- Government of Quebec. Échelle québécoise des niveaux de compétence en français (official site, French only). https://echelle-quebecoise.gouv.qc.ca/
- Government of Quebec. Correspondence table between test scores and levels (PSTQ), dated November 29, 2024 (French only). https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/immigration/formulaires/fr/PSTQ/TAB_PSTQ_Correspondance_niveaux_francais.pdf
- Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks. General CLB resources. https://www.language.ca/resourcesexpertise/on-clb/