This article examines how national laws determine which cultural property receives formal heritage protection by comparing five legal systems: Italy, Australia, Japan, the United States of America, and Peru. By mapping national heritage attribution frameworks that distinctly blend intrinsic and contextual values on an intrinsic–contextual spectrum, we show how heritage attribution varies widely and reflects each country’s legal traditions. Italy relies on expert-led assessments of material authenticity, while Australia incorporates Indigenous traditions and communal aesthetic perspectives. Japan operates two separate regimes—one expert-led, the other narrative-driven. The United States applies technical criteria for intrinsic assessment, yet it allows for contextual interpretation in practice. The heritage attribution framework of Peru combines both intrinsic and contextual approaches, as well as their mixtures. That said, heritage attributes associated with intrinsic values are highly detailed; three distinct categories focus specifically on the material and aesthetic aspects of cultural property. Our comparative legal analysis examines whether a genuine tension exists between intrinsic and contextual values in national heritage attribution—a question that remains underexplored in legal scholarship. We conclude with recommendations for inclusive heritage attribution criteria and call for further comparative research on extending our intrinsic–contextual spectrum of heritage values.