This chapter compares green and conventional (“brown”) bonds along purpose of proceeds, transparency and post-issuance reporting, verification, pricing, liquidity, risk, investor base, and market behaviour. We clarify why use-of-proceeds discipline and independent reviews differentiate labelled debt and synthesise mixed evidence on the “greenium”: While investors sometimes accept lower yields for credible, ring-fenced issues, effect sizes vary by issuer type, sector, regime, and disclosure quality and often vanish when fundamentals are controlled. Using a large euro-denominated panel, we estimate issuance-day pricing with rating, sector, size, maturity, and time fixed effects and show that the average greenium is statistically indistinguishable from zero; observed unconditional gaps are largely explained by conventional covariates and supply-demand conditions. Liquidity advantages accrue to larger, benchmark-eligible issues; diversification benefits are limited given high correlation with conventional fixed income, although downside protection may appear in specific stresses. We discuss theoretical channels (non-pecuniary preferences, information asymmetry, perceived risk) and derive policy implications: Credible taxonomies, mandatory post-issuance impact reporting, and robust assurance are necessary for any persistent pricing differential; monetary and collateral frameworks can reinforce integrity by aligning incentives. Overall, pricing differences are conditional and earned by verification, not labels.