This article investigates research evaluation regimes from a global-comparative perspective by developing a critical heuristic. Starting from Michael Power’s argument that evaluations are essentially linked to modes of governing, we highlight the role of political programmes, informality and questions of (de-)centralisation to understand the modes of governing science through research evaluation regimes. While a large body of literature has studied research evaluation systems individually and from a comparative perspective, we observe an underlying methodological nationalism in the field which sidelines regional or transnational constellations. We show that the predominant case-based approach neglects the diverse constellations of evaluating and evaluated actors and non-centralised research evaluation regimes as well as informal dynamics. Based on this, we argue to account for the diversity of actors and logics as well as informal, normative and performative aspects of research evaluation regimes. Building on insights in the sociology of valuation, we critically reframe accounts of centralised research evaluation systems with one core evaluating body by describing the constellation of evaluating and funding actors as heterarchical. The article presents a heuristic distinguishing research evaluation regimes along four dimensions of characteristics – the constellation of actors (1), procedures (2), functions (3), and programmes and values (4) – to better understand the governing of science through evaluation from a transnational perspective. The heuristic is presented as a starting point to conduct context-sensitive, comparative studies of research evaluation regimes to promote a more nuanced understanding of power constellations and modes of governing science.