In memoriam: This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr Peter G. Hill, who helped numerous tephrochronologists over many years with his analytical skills, especially using the electron microprobe, and with his selfless personal support. Dr. Hill also co-led two previous intercomparisons which hel-ped to inspire this work. a b s t r a c t The INternational focus group on Tephrochronology And Volcanism (INTAV) of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) has conducted an intercomparison of tephrochronology laboratories with electron-beam microanalytical data on volcanic glasses submitted from 27 instruments at 24 institutions in 9 countries. This assessment includes most active tephrochronology laboratories and represents the largest intercomparison exercise yet conducted by the tephrochronology community. The intercomparison was motivated by the desire to assess the quality of data currently being produced and to stimulate improvements in analytical protocols and data reporting that will increase the efficacy of tephra fingerprinting and corre-lation. Participating laboratories were each supplied with a mount containing three samples for analysis: (1) rhyolitic Lipari obsidian ID3506, (2) phonolitic Sheep Track tephra from Mt. Edziza, British Columbia, Canada, and (3) basaltic Laki 1783 A.D. tephra. A fourth sample, rhyolitic Old Crow tephra, was also distributed. Most laboratories submitted extensive details of their analytical procedures in addition to their analytical results. Most used some combination of defocused or rastered beam and modest beam current to reduce alkali element migration. Approximately two-thirds reported that they routinely analyze one or more secondary standards to evaluate data quality and instrument performance. Despite substantial variety in procedures and calibration standards, most mean concentrations compare favorably between laboratories and with other data. Typically, four or fewer data contributions had means for a given element on a given sample that differed by more than AE2 standard deviations from the overall means. Obtaining accurate Na 2 O concentrations for the phonolitic tephra proved to be a challenge for many laboratories. Only one-half of the data sets had means within AE1 standard deviation of the w8.2 wt% Na 2 O value obtained by other methods. One mean is higher and 14 are lower. Three of the data set means fall below 7 wt% Na 2 O. Most submissions had relative precision better than 1e5% for the major elements. For low-abundance elements, the precision varied substantially with relative standard deviations as small as 10% and as large as 110%. Because of the strong response to this project, the tephrochronology community now has a large comparative data set derived from common reference materials that will facilitate improvements in accuracy and precision and which can enable improved use of published data produced by the participating laboratories. Finally, recommendations are provided for improving accuracy, precision, and reporting of electron-beam microanalytical data from glasses.