Measuring LGBTQ+ Inclusion: A Comparative Analysis of Public Equality Indices Across Five Domains

Background: Tracking progress in LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other sexual and gender minority) inclusion requires valid, accessible tools.However, existing public indices, tools that measure inclusion, vary widely in what they capture.Many are also becoming harder to access.To better understand the landscape in August 2025, we sought to identify publicly available indices and categorize them into five domains: legal, healthcare, workplace, public opinion, and general equality.This study analyzes patterns across these domains to determine where inclusion is most consistently measured and where key gaps remain. Methods:We conducted a structured comparative analysis of 25 publicly available LGBTQ+ equality indices to examine how each metric was defined and measured across five domains.To enable cross-index comparison, each metric was assigned a binary score: "high inclusion" for values 50 on a scale of 0-100 (or equivalent on a 0-1 scale) and "low inclusion" for values <50.We compiled this information into lgbtDB, a searchable, public resource designed to support future comparative analysis.Results: Patterns across the 25 LGBTQ+ equality indices revealed significant variation in measurement scale, content, and compatibility across domains.Legal metrics showed the most consistency, while workplace and healthcare domains exhibited the greatest variation in how inclusion was defined and scored. Conclusion:Findings highlight significant variation in how LGBTQ+ inclusion is measured, with legal indices showing the greatest alignment.The development of lgbtDB offers a way to preserve these public tools and support future analysis of structural inclusion.