OBJECTIVES: Several oncology value frameworks recently emerged in the United States and are currently being used to value new therapies. These frameworks use heterogeneous methodologies, consider different evidence, and target different audience. Here we summarize the different approaches as well as different outcomes using examples in Multiple Myeloma (MM). We also compare these new US frameworks to new and well established Health Technology Assessment (HTA) approaches outside the US. METHODS: The following frameworks were compared: National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology Conceptual Framework (ASCO), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center DrugAbacus (MSKCC), Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) Value Assessment Project; and compared to European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO), NHS England Cancer Drug Fund Prioritization Tool (CDF) and two HTAs: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). RESULTS: All of the reviewed frameworks consider therapeutic benefit; however, few (ASCO, ESMO and CDF) employ detailed reviews and the hierarchy of clinical trial endpoints (overall survival, progression free survival and response rates) and in-depth evaluation of safety (toxicities’ rates). ICER and HTAs utilize Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) to measure effectiveness, while NCCN and MSKCC approaches lack transparency. Not all frameworks consider patients’ impact in terms of quality of life or treatment free period. Although many incorporate costs, these are mostly limited to price and do not consider other direct or indirect costs except for ICER and other HTA approaches. Application to MM will be presented. CONCLUSIONS:  Heterogeneous methodologies, various data considerations and target audience may lead to potentially contradicting recommendations across frameworks. Further refinement of each valuation approach is ongoing; however, it is clear that these emerging frameworks will raise the objectivity and transparency of healthcare decisions.