Aims To compare nurse turnover rates and costs from four studies in four countries (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) that have used the same costing methodology; the original Nursing Turnover Cost Calculation Methodology. Background Measuring and comparing the costs and rates of turnover is difficult because of differences in definitions and methodologies. Design Comparative review. Data Sources Searches were carried out within CINAHL, Business Source Complete and Medline for studies that used the original Nursing Turnover Cost Calculation Methodology and reported on both costs and rates of nurse turnover, published from 2014 and prior. Methods A comparative review of turnover data was conducted using four studies that employed the original Nursing Turnover Cost Calculation Methodology. Costing data items were converted to percentages, while total turnover costs were converted to US 2014 dollars and adjusted according to inflation rates, to permit cross‐country comparisons. Results Despite using the same methodology, Australia reported significantly higher turnover costs (48,790)duetohighertermination(~50%ofindirectcosts)andtemporaryreplacementcosts(~90%ofdirectcosts).Costswerealmost50%lowerintheUS( 20,561), Canada (26,652)andNewZealand( 23,711). Turnover rates also varied significantly across countries with the highest rate reported in New Zealand (44� 3%) followed by the US (26� 8%), Canada (19� 9%) and Australia (15� 1%). Conclusion A significant proportion of turnover costs are attributed to temporary replacement, highlighting the importance of nurse retention. The authors suggest a minimum dataset is also required to eliminate potential variability across countries, states, hospitals and departments.