As the regional development discourse is expanding to include more qualitative perspectives on development that aim at broader societal change (Sachs et al. 2019), regional transitions and regional development are often equated and the involved dynamics are treated to be the same. We argue for a more differentiated pespective, as we see them as crucially entangled but not the same. Inter-regional relations and learning have already been fundamentally discussed in the literature (Hassink and Hülz 2010, Balland and Boschma 2021), and identified as key in a perspective of ‘transformative regional development’ (Chlebna et al 2022). In contrast, to date only a handful of scholars have explicitly addressed learning dynamics in, from, and beyond regional transitions (Forrest and Wiek 2014, van Mierlo et al. 2020, Svare et al. 2023). This contribution addresses these two dimensions to better understand how and why actors engage in transition learning, and how this relates to the transition-development nexus in regions, i.e. the deliberate linking of the sustainable transformation of socio-technical systems and (challenge-driven) regional development agendas (Tödtling et al. 2022). We take an evolutionary approach and develop a concept of likely learning processes, resulting dynamics, and potential outcomes. We do so by offering a descriptive heuristic that differentiates ‘learning between regions’ and ‘learning between transitions’, and combinations of the two. We further define different engagement levels, i.e., degrees of contact and interaction between actors in transition processes and different regions respectively: (i) learning from distant observation (e.g. reading about another region or transition), (ii) learning from dialogue (e.g. exchanging information and experience), and (iii) learning from active engagement (e.g. participating in projects together). Finally, we conceptualize potential immediate results, and long-term development outcomes of these processes. We illustrate some of these dynamics with empirical examples from regional energy transition processes in Germany and Austria. While these show that the envisaged goal most often is the substantiation or amplification of one's own transition, it becomes apparent how the knowledge acquired is in some cases deliberately employed for regional development agendas, and only secondarily aimed towards transition goals. One implication is that transition discourse may be referred to as vehicle for regional development in order to generate locational advantages, advance regional path development, and put resources to a (new) use rather than to advance or even accelerate transitions (or transformative regional development) in a wider sense which would also involve social innovation, behavioral shifts, and societal changes to allow for just and equitable outcomes as part of longer term sustainable regional development. Our heuristic hence enables a more differentiated discussion of relevant questions in the context of transition learning dynamics in the transition-development nexus: Why do actors engage in learning activities in the fist place? What are their intentions? And what role do self-perceptions of regional development challenges, and regional or socio-technical imaginaries play?