  Global coronal models seek to produce an accurate physical representation of
the Sun's atmosphere which can be used, for example, to drive space weather
models. Assessing their accuracy is a complex task and there are multiple
observational pathways to provide constraints and tune model parameters. Here,
we combine several such independent constraints, defining a model-agnostic
framework for standardized comparison. We require models to predict the
distribution of coronal holes at the photosphere, and neutral line topology at
the model outer boundary. We compare these predictions to extreme ultraviolet
(EUV) observations of coronal hole locations, white-light Carrington maps of
the streamer belt and the magnetic sector structure measured \textit{in situ}
by Parker Solar Probe and 1AU spacecraft. We study these metrics for Potential
Field Source Surface (PFSS) models as a function of source surface height and
magnetogram choice, as well as comparing to the more physical Wang-Sheeley-Arge
(WSA) and the Magnetohydrodynamics Algorithm outside a Sphere (MAS) models. We
find that simultaneous optimization of PFSS models to all three metrics is not
currently possible, implying a trade-off between the quality of representation
of coronal holes and streamer belt topology. WSA and MAS results show the
additional physics they include addresses this by flattening the streamer belt
while maintaining coronal hole sizes, with MAS also improving coronal hole
representation relative to WSA. We conclude that this framework is highly
useful for inter- and intra-model comparisons. Integral to the framework is the
standardization of observables required of each model, evaluating different
model aspects.
