The European Union (EU) and many of its Member States consider Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) to be an essential approach to implementing a circular economy, with EPR forming a core pillar of the EU's Circular Economy Action Plan. EPR became mandatory throughout the EU in 2018, as per the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, with further regulations being implemented as part of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, binding from 2026. EPR systems for packaging waste now exist across Europe, but there are still important questions about the best way to design these systems. Although EU law sets common recycling targets, such as 65% (of total packaging waste) by 2025, each country uses its own implementation model (for example, Germany has a competitive system while Italy uses a centralised monopoly model). This study addresses a central question for policy guidance: Which systems in Europe deliver superior cost-effectiveness and environmental performance under which circumstances? Our primary objective was to comprehensively assess and compare the performance of several (competitive, monopolistic, and quasi-monopolistic) EPR systems across Europe, identifying success conditions that drive effective packaging waste management. It is important to know which system designs work best, so that EU recycling targets can be met with optimal cost effectiveness for producers and society. This research conceptualizes EPR as a complex policy mix operating across multiple hierarchical levels. Because of this policy mix, it is too simplistic to only use one distinguishing variable like monopolistic and competitive. Success depends on many factors and cannot be measured by just one indicator. Plastic packaging represents the most challenging waste stream and recycling rates vary dramatically across countries. Understanding which system designs achieve better performance is essential for meeting ambitious EU recycling targets while optimizing costs to producers and society. Therefore, to be able to effectively understand the complex EPR landscape, we developed five detailed country case studies on Germany, Italy, Belgium, France and Spain. In addition, we employed a comparative analysis of eight European countries (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, Austria, Czech Republic) using a systematic evaluation framework. This included conducting an efficiency analysis using cost-effectiveness ratios adjusted for purchasing power parity. This allowed us to compare cost efficiency between countries in one indicator, representing the percentage of material recycled per euro spent. Our multi-dimensional scoring system converted quantitative performance data and qualitative system characteristics into standardized 1 (low)-5 (high) point scores across four categories: 1. Environmental performance 2. Cost and economic efficiency 3. System design and governance 4. Innovation capacity Our analysis shows that recycling rates vary widely across Europe, and there is no clear advantage for a black or white comparison between competitive or monopolistic systems. Using the indicators for environmental performance, Germany has the highest recycling rates in Europe for household packaging. If PET quantities from the Deposit Return System (DRS) are included (which are managed separately), a weighted average rate of 76.1% is reached. This is well above the EU target (though for general packaging), with the EU is only aiming for 50% in 2025 and 55% in 2030 for overall plastic packaging. Belgium demonstrates the second-highest plastic recycling performance at 60.8%, proving that monopolistic systems can achieve strong environmental outcomes when supported by adequate financing and regulatory oversight. Our analysis shows that how a system is designed matters more than whether it is competitive or monopolistic. Competitive systems can sometimes reduce costs, but competition alone is not enough. When analysing cost efficiency indicators for plastic recycling, Germany emerges as the clear leader, followed by Italy. For Paper, paperboard, and cardboard (PPC), the Netherlands are ahead, followed by Italy. For glass recycling it is again Italy followed by France and Germany. Belgium, with a non-profit, monopolistic structure presents a particular challenge for cost efficiency analysis, despite a good recycling performance of 60.8%, indicating the impact of a lack of competitive pressure.