This chapter, Framework for Comparative Analysis, compares an existing intelligence mission, counterdrugs, with the status of a climate security intelligence mission using the steps of the design framework. In each of the framework’s eight steps, the history and condition are discussed for each of the two intelligence missions. The result of the comparative analysis shows that substantively, there is very little similarity in terms of framework maturity between the two missions. However, there are conceptual similarities that lead to a potential successful implementation of climate security intelligence. The “demand signal,” “policy decision,” and “budget decision” steps share a potential similarity in that the current absence of a climate security step could be realized by virtue of a demand signal that could be hypothetically paralleled as what emerged with counterdrugs. The remaining five framework steps share a process similarity of being structurally similar, which does little to assist with context and methodological differences. All steps exhibited major differences between the two missions. By “major,” the differences were binary, where counterdrugs was accomplished or operational, the climate security intelligence has not. After the comparison, the implications for creating climate security intelligence are summarized. A discussion evaluates whether the use of the pandemic mission can serve as an exemplar for climate security intelligence and concludes it is not comparable, therefore not directly helpful.