This paper presents a comparative study of city risk assessment in Estonia, as a so-called 'new member' and in the UK as an 'old member' of the EU. The comparison of the outcomes was carried out on the basis of four strategically selected risk assessments of Estonian cities and the same number of British cities. The selected indicators of comparison were legislative requirements, provision and performance, methodologies, types of analysed risks, risk assessment outcomes on a wide scale, risk assessment results, usage of risk matrixes and also publication and availability.The risk assessments in both countries were required not only on a local community level, but on regional and state levels as well. In the UK the legal requirements and anchors in methodology were in general more clearly defined, which guarantees the similarity and better compatibility of the risk assessments of different cities and parishes. For example the division of risk matrix between risk rankings is precisely determined in British methodology, however in the Estonian, different interpretations are currently allowable. British legislation also sets concrete requirements for the publication of the community risk register, but in Estonia the availability of similar material depends on the decision and good will of the local government.The final conclusion is that the territorial risk assessment methodologies of different European countries cannot be overtaken one-for-one or converted. At the same time, British risk assessment methodology and organisation can undoubtedly serve as one of the examples in the process of the further development of territorial risk assessment methodology in Estonia and maybe also for other 'new members' of the European Union, as was previously expected.