Few arguments on comparisons with some model dependent results
No experiment is available - with the exception of the presently running DAMA/LIBRA -
whose result can be directly compared in a model independent way with the experimental
positive 6.3 σ C.L. evidence for the presence of particle Dark Matter in the galactic halo.
As regards some claimed model-dependent comparisons we just mention - among the many existing arguments: i) the other experiments are insensitive to the annual modulation signature; ii) they use different target material; iii) they release just a marginal exposure (orders of magnitude lower than the one by DAMA/NaI) after many years underground; iv) they exploit strong data selection and strong and often unsafe rejection techniques of their huge counting rate, becoming at the same time insensitive to DM several candidates; v) they generally quote in an incorrect/partial/not updated way the DAMA/NaI result (see even in LNGS web site...); vi) they consider a single model fixing all the astrophysical, nuclear and particle Physics assumptions as well as all the theoretical and experimental parameters at a single questionable choice. Thus, e.g. they do not account for the existing uncertainties on the real coupling with ordinary matter, on the spin-dependent and spin-independent form factors and related parameters for each nucleus, on the spin factor used for each nucleus, on the real scaling laws for nuclear cross sections among different target materials; on the experimental and theoretical parameters, on the effect of different halo models and related parameters on the different target materials, etc.
Moreover, real limitations in the sensitivities they claimed - just for "nuclear recoils" and purely SI interactions under a single arbitrary set of expt. and theor. assumptions - arise e.g. from: unproved physical threshold with suitable source calibrations; energy scale extrapolated from much higher energy even without having demonstrated the (un)linearity of the detector(s) in the region of interest; unproved stability of the running parameters and of all the used "rejection" windows; marginal exposures released generally after years underground; unproved determination of the efficiencies in each of the many applied data handling at the needed level of claimed precision; disuniformity in the detector response (e.g. in two-phase liquid noble gas detectors); etc. etc. Note that - in addition - at the end of all their "subtractions" if events still remain in their claimed recoil-like regions, they call them "unknown background" ... ---->> thus, they by themselves recognize no potentiality of discovery to their approaches.