Many countries have been developing their own FEP (Feature, Event, Process) lists to formulate radionuclide release scenarios in deep disposal repository of spent nuclear fuels and to assess the safety. The main issue in developing a FEP list is to ensure its completeness and comprehensiveness in examining all plausible scenarios of radionuclide release in a repository of interest. To this end, the NEA International FEP (IFEP) list as a generic reference have been developed and updated through long-term international collaborations. Leading countries advanced in the research field of deep geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuels have comparatively mapped their project-specific FEP (PFEP) lists with the IFEP list. Recently in 2019, NEA has published an updated version of IFEP list (ver. 3.0) which has a different classification system: the IFEP version 3.0 has the five main categories including the waste package, repository, geosphere, biosphere and external factors while the previous IFEP versions were mainly classified into the external, environmental, and contaminant factors. Most leading countries in this field, Finland and Sweden, recently succeeded to obtain the design and/or construction licenses for deep geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Therefore, their PFEP lists should be good benchmark cases to the following countries. However, their PFEP lists have not comparatively mapped with the most recent version of IFEP and thus some gaps may exist in showing completeness and comprehensiveness in comparison to the IFEP version 3.0. In this study, we comparatively map the PFEP lists of Finland and Sweden to the IFEP version 3.0. The comparatively mapped PFEP list could be used as the basis for verifying the comprehensiveness and completeness of the domestic PFEP list currently under development in Korea.