Despite initial scepticism about their very existence, hybrid regimes have increasingly attracted scholarly attention. The rapid development of the debate, however, is in striking contrast with its often inconclusive results. The goals of this article are to identify the causes of this impasse and to seek a solution for it. In particular, the article focuses on a crucial point of contention: how to define hybrid regimes. The analysis shows why divergences on this issue hamper dialogue among researchers, as well as the accumulation of knowledge. We suggest shifting attention from regimes to institutions and propose a "consensus-sensitive" indicator to establish which regimes can be defined as hybrid regardless of disagreement on their conceptualisation. The new measure is used to replicate the contrasting results of two recent studies. The conclusion is that by going beyond conceptual barriers, we can successfully shed light on the "grey zone".