Five fixed micropipettes of 100 µl were tested by eight different National Metrology Institutes from different Regional Metrology Organizations between July 2011 and June 2012. The micropipettes had a stable volume, during the whole comparison, with a maximum standard deviation of 0.06 µl. After a careful analysis of the original results it was decided to make corrections to the standard atmospheric pressure in order to compare results under the same calibration conditions. These corrections led to a decrease of variability within the laboratories. It was also decided to include the stability of the standard and the method variability, determined by the pilot laboratory, in the uncertainty budget of each laboratory.The corrected results (volume and uncertainty) are consistent and overlap with the key comparison reference values for the micropipettes 354828Z, 354853Z and 354864Z. For the other two micropipettes only one result is not consistent with the reference value. Most results also overlap with those of the other laboratories di,j < U(di,j).An important outcome of this comparison is that in order to have comparable results, corrections for the working conditions must be applied to the laboratory results. Laboratories must always correct their reported volume results to a reference pressure condition and temperature (for example 101.325 kPa and 20 ºC) and this information should be stated in the calibration certificate of the micropipette. Also the standard uncertainty of the method variability and reproducibility values should always be included in the uncertainty budget (around 0.1%) to lead to more realistic uncertainty values.Main text.To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).