To an extent, this type of comparative imperial analysis is relatively common in studies of these empires. Dominic Lieven's survey Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals examines the Romanov's empire in comparison to the British, Habsburg, and Ottoman empires and is one example of such a comparative history. Most comparative studies tend to be anthologies derived from conferences, which is not surprising given the linguistic and archival barriers to studying these polities. Comparative histories of the trio tend to focus mostly on the (mis)management of the ethnic question by the empires in question. The anthology After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building: The Soviet Union and the Russian, Ottoman and Habsburg Empires is one example of this species of scholarship as does the recent anthology Shatterzone of Empires: Coexistence and Violence in the German, Habsburg, Russian, and Ottoman Borderlands which is an exemplar of area studies. Michael Reynolds's monograph Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires is a study of the competing rule of the Caucasus peoples. As the use of "shattering" indicates Reynolds contends that both empires played with fire with their rule over frontier peoples that simultaneously sought to control their ethnic minorities while threatening their neighbor with irridentism. The anthology Imperial Rule edited by Alexei Miller & Alfred J. Rieber is another great byproduct of conference papers and examines the mechanisms of modern imperial power. Ted Weeks's Kritika article "Religion and Russification: Russian Language in the Catholic Churches of the Northwest Provinces After 1863" as well as his other work on the Uniate church does reference how confessional policies were framed in light of the imperial other just across the borderlands. Polish history naturally lends itself well to comparative imperial studies as the nation was partitioned between three imperial powers: Germany, Austria, and Russia. Piotr S. Wandycz's The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918 is one of the better studies of how Poles responded to this division and foreign rule.

But while comparative history is easy to do it is quite difficult to do it well. Not only are the linguistic challenges quite high, there are very different and unique historical contexts that separated the empires. What might at first appear to be a congruence in imperial policies soon disappears upon closer analysis. In order for comparative analysis to bear fruit it has to be more than just setting Empire A and B against each other but rather must be something more organic.