In the charging business, location isn't just important — it's the whole game. A charger in the right spot prints money. The same hardware in the wrong spot bleeds it.
We explored the economics of this in our deep dive What does it take for a CPO to be profitable? — and the conclusion was clear: the single largest driver of CPO value is the quality of the locations in their portfolio. CAPEX can be optimised. Pricing can be adjusted. Operations can be improved. But a bad location stays a bad location.This is why we built a location scoring model. And this is what it tells us.
How we score locations
Every station in our database is scored by a machine learning model trained on millions of historic charging sessions. The model evaluates traffic proximity, population density, road connectivity, nearby amenities, and competitive density — then outputs a single number: the location score.The score feeds into our Pulse demand model, which estimates how much charging demand a station should attract:This isn't guesswork. The model is trained on actual charging usage across millions of data points from markets where we have full session-level data. We then apply the learned patterns to score stations in every market we cover.
Why scores differ between markets
The location score uses a uniform global scale. A station scoring 1.8 represents the same demand potential whether it's in the Netherlands or Norway. But you'll find far more 1.8-scoring locations in the Netherlands than in Norway — because dense, well-connected, amenity-rich spots are simply more common in a compact, urbanised market.
This is why national averages differ so much between countries. It's not that the model treats markets differently — it's that the underlying geography and infrastructure density produce different score distributions. What's useful is comparing operators within a market, or tracking how a market's average evolves over time as infrastructure fills in.The execution score works differently — it's relative to peers within each market. A score above 1.0 means the operator outperforms its local competitors. This way, a well-run CPO in a smaller market gets the credit it deserves.Average DC location score by country
Here's the average location score across DC fast charging stations in every market we cover. The UK leads at 2.10 — dense population, concentrated motorway corridors, and strong service area coverage. The Nordics and Southeast Europe sit at the other end, reflecting lower population density and longer distances between demand centres.
The spread matters. The UK's 2.10 is nearly double Croatia's 1.13. Same model, same methodology — different market realities.
Tesla's location strategy, tested
Tesla built the Supercharger network with one goal: enable long-distance driving. That meant strategic highway locations — Autobahn service areas, motorway rest stops, popular corridor destinations. The urban stations came later.
This strategy shows up clearly in the data. We compared Tesla's average DC location score against the DC market average across twelve markets:
In Central and Western Europe, Tesla's site selection pays off. Germany (2.03 vs 1.88), France (1.86 vs 1.50), and Czechia (2.12 vs 1.78) all show Tesla outperforming the DC market average. These are markets where Autobahn rest stops, commercial retail parks, and high-traffic highway junctions score well — exactly the kind of locations Tesla targeted.
The Nordic picture is different. In Norway (1.13 vs 1.19), Sweden (1.27 vs 1.34), and Finland (1.30 vs 1.35), Tesla sits below the DC market average. Tesla's early Supercharger strategy prioritised remote highway corridors to enable long-distance travel — locations between cities where traffic density is low and nearby amenities are sparse. In the Nordics, that means fjord-side rest stops and mountain passes. The competitors who focused on urban and suburban hubs score higher because those locations simply have more of what the model measures: traffic, people, and services.
The spread within Tesla's own Norwegian portfolio tells the story. Their highest-scoring station is the Fredrikstad Supercharger in Østfold (3.45) — a city of 80 000 on the E6 near the Swedish border, surrounded by retail and services. Their lowest is the Aurland Supercharger in Vestland (0.15) — a remote fjord village on the road to Flåm, population 900, with nothing nearby but mountains and a tunnel.The same pattern plays out in the US. Tesla's Kit Carson Supercharger in rural eastern Colorado scores 0.22 — a tiny town on US-40 with a population of 200 and nothing but plains in every direction. The Trapper Creek Supercharger in Alaska scores 0.23 — a highway stop between Anchorage and Denali with no town to speak of. These stations exist to fill gaps in the route network, not to generate high utilization.A sparsely trafficked corridor with few amenities is going to be hard to turn into a profitable charging location, regardless of how well it's operated. Dense, well-connected areas score higher because that's where the demand is — and that's where the economics work. The model confirms what the balance sheets already show.
How does your favourite CPO stack up?
Every CPO profile on Chargalytics includes the operator's median location score, execution score, and market-by-market breakdown. See which operators are sitting on prime real estate — and which ones are trying to make it work from the B-list.
Start your free 7-day trial and benchmark any CPO against their competitors.