The distribution of the ambient dose equivalent rate (i.e., air dose rate) after a nuclear disaster is crucial for zoning contaminated areas to facilitate authorities’ effective decision making. Several countries are considering a gradual characterization strategy where airborne measurement is performed first followed by ground measurement (i.e., via manborne or carborne surveys). Nonetheless, potential differences might emerge in country-specific air dose rate assessment methods. Explaining these discrepancies can improve and converge existing methodologies. The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), which are organizations involved in post-nuclear accident crisis management, jointly performed air dose rate measurements in 2019 at contaminated sites around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The similarities and differences between the two organizations’ methods and results were quantitatively assessed by comparing the average air dose rates obtained within a grid created with a geographic information system, and the reasons for the differences between the organizations’ results were investigated. The air dose rates obtained by the manborne measurements varied depending on the calibration method. Comparing the air dose rate assessment methods and mapping techniques used in different countries will contribute to developing international guidelines for recommending the best method for determining air dose rates.