Language framework equivalencies
The same language level reads differently depending on the framework used. Our correspondence charts — sourced from alignment studies and official documents — let you move from one system to another without losing the nuance.
The European CEFR, Canada's CLB, the North American ACTFL scale and test scores such as IELTS all measure language proficiency — but they were built separately, for different purposes. Correspondences between them do exist, they are documented, and they are more nuanced than the conversion charts usually found online. Every page below cites its sources and states plainly where no official correspondence exists.
Our correspondence charts
CEFR ↔ CLB (NCLC)
The reference chart between Canadian and European levels, based on North & Piccardo (2019): all 12 CLB benchmarks, their documented nuances, Express Entry thresholds, and Quebec's separate scale.
CLB 7 is B1+, not B2
View the chartCEFR ↔ ACTFL
The official correspondence chart published by ACTFL — in fact two charts, one for comprehension and one for expression, and they don't tell the same story. Plus the decisive caveat: the correspondence only holds in one direction.
Superior is C1.2 in comprehension, C2 in speaking
View both chartsCEFR ↔ IELTS
The official correspondence between IELTS bands and CEFR levels — with a confidence level for every row. IELTS refuses the exact table and names three borderline bands itself: this chart shows them instead of smoothing them over.
IELTS won't settle it: bands 5, 6.5 and 8 are grey zones
View the chart and its grey zonesCEFR ↔ TOEFL
ETS's official correspondences between TOEFL iBT scores and CEFR levels — for both scoring systems in use since the January 21, 2026 switch: the new CEFR-native 1–6 scale and the historical 0–120 scale.
ETS switched scales in 2026: two systems coexist
View both systems' correspondencesLooking for the official CEFR descriptors themselves, boundary by boundary?
Browse the descriptor libraryThese pages are written and checked against primary sources: alignment studies, official agency documents and published frameworks. Where a correspondence has not been officially established, we say so rather than estimate it.