Offsetting schemes to compensate biodiversity loss resulting from land-use change (e.g., urbanization, infrastructure expansion) suffer limitations, related notably to the requirement for ecological equivalence between losses and gains, which cover ecological, spatial, temporal, and uncertainty considerations. Such limitations impair the effectiveness of biodiversity offsets. Biodiversity offsetting is nevertheless adopted by an ever-increasing number of countries. We analyze how Peru and France approach biodiversity offsetting and whether and how they address all or some of these limitations, which could serve to inform other countries adopting such mechanism. We show that, although both countries apply similar principles, their no net loss (NNL) objective differs (NNL of biodiversity and ecosystem functionality in Peru vs NNL of biodiversity in France) with consequences on the ecological equivalence approaches adopted. In Peru, the imposed assessment method is habitat-based and adapted to specific ecosystems. By contrast, there is no mandatory assessment methods in France and, with the exception of wetlands, the focus is strongly on protected species, and on species functional traits rather than ecosystems in their entirety. The Peruvian method does not systematically integrate the landscape context and temporal losses are not accounted for, whereas uncertainty could be considered as indirectly taken into account. In France, landscape connectivity is not necessarily included in assessment methods, although it can be taken into account in practice. Furthermore, although weighting assessment methods may address temporal losses and uncertainty, their variety prevents a comparison of outcomes. Additional elements would warrant further analysis (e.g., monitoring and compliance).