Table 5 shows the ratio of the homogeneous regions formed by each hybrid algorithm according to each heterogeneity measure H to all the regions provided by it. The first three columns of the table show the ratio of homogeneous regions (H < 1), each based on one of the heterogeneity measures (⁠⁠). The two last columns of the table are related to the assessment of homogeneity of the formed regions based on the values of the three heterogeneity measures (⁠⁠), simultaneously. It is seen from the table that if the regions with H < 1 are considered as ‘acceptably homogeneous’, then CLFCM, WFCM and SOFMFCM algorithms provide a maximum number of homogeneous regions respectively. However, if the criteria H < 2 suggested by Rao & Srinivas (2006a, 2006b), Wallis et al. (2007) and Srinivas et al. (2008) is used to identify ‘possibly homogeneous’ regions, then the percentage of the homogeneous regions provided by each hybrid algorithm grows considerably, especially in the cases of WFCM and SOFMFCM, and all the formed regions can be considered as homogeneous.