This study aims to compare the strategies that Finland and Spain have taken in order to get the Gold license from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Core and Shell (LEED–C-and-S) rating system. LEED–C-and-S version 3 (v3) and version 4 (v4) were considered. The absolute effect size is used to evaluate the performance of the LEED–C-and-S points. To assess the difference between Finland and Spain, we use the natural logarithm of the odds ratio and Fisher’s exact 2 × 2 test with Lancaster’s mid-p-value when analyzing the dichotomous data, and Cliff’s δ and the exact Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests when analyzing ordinal data. As a result, in order to achieve the Gold level in LEED–C-and-S office-type projects, Finland and Spain demonstrated similarities and differences in credit values in v3 and v4. In v4 (latest version), the similarly high credits were location and transportation (LT) and water efficiency (WE) and similarly low credits were material and resource (MR) and environmental quality (EQ); different credit values were in the energy and atmosphere (EA) category, in which Finland outperformed Spain, and the sustainable sites (SS) strategy category, in which Spain outperformed Finland. Thus, Finland used the LT-WE-EA strategy, whereas Spain used the LT-WE-SS strategy. Knowing these strategies can be helpful in better understanding green building development in these countries.