Which is exactly the point: Why would you compare it to dramatically different countries instead of ones that mainly differed on the axis of interest, unless you had an axe to grind?
The disease likes dense urban areas with a lot of poor immigrants working in big care homes. Comparing countries is not really "fair". In Canada, Montreal got hit hard. In the USA, NYC, Philadelphia and Boston got it hard. It's a urban centric disease. So yes it's fair to compare to Sweden to Germany, France, UK and Belgium.
Stockholm: 11,802/sqm
Oslo: 4,268/sqm
Helsinki: 3,670/sqm
Wikipedia:
Helsinki: 3,070.08/km2 (7,951.5/sq mi)
No matter how you slice the figures, Stockholm seems to be a bigger denser city than Helsinki or Oslo.
These comparisons can be made arbitrarily to make Sweden look either bad or good.
Really? I guess your definition of "quite different" is different from the usual. Would you care to expand?
Language and culture across Scandinavia is very similar, and Finland's culture is different only to a small degree if at all
Instead, I would point out various socio-economic factors, such as Sweden having a higher rate of ethnic minorities (generally over-represented in COVID-19), Norway's GDP being far higher than the others (thanks to fossil fuel) and Sweden having a far greater population in elderly care institutions, compared to Finland.
A great deal of the deaths in Sweden come from nursing homes, where you had the situation that caregivers would travel from one institution to the next, spreading the virus.