OBJECTIVES:  GfK reviewed the capabilities and limitations of five of the most notable value frameworks to emerge in recent years, to compare and contrast the relative value that each conveys as well as their application among the intended stakeholders. METHODS:  GfK contrasted the methodology of the ASCO Value Framework (version 2.0), NCCN Evidence Blocks, MSKCC DrugAbacus, ICER Value Assessment Framework and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale with respect to the input, scoring approach and output. In addition, GfK gleaned stakeholder insight on these frameworks and their potential application from dialogues with physicians and payers as well as secondary research and meta-analysis of existing data. RESULTS:  GfK noted several framework-specific themes related to trial analysis, breadth of evidence, evidence weighting, scoring and value to stakeholders. Our dialogues with physicians and meta-analysis of existing data revealed level of awareness and use of value frameworks in practice. For example, while the ASCO value framework appears nascent in clinical practice, physicians believe they will be more purposeful in the future as they become more established and the outputs more widely accepted. CONCLUSIONS:  The value of drugs is emerging as a particularly acute concern in oncology, where the cost of cancer care has evoked concerns of “financial toxicity”. Along with patients and payers, physicians and policymakers have waded into the discussion, as well as the pharmaceutical industry that seek to understand the impact of these value frameworks as they model the value and financial threshold of innovative, high-cost drugs. Each of these five major value frameworks is geared to a different set of stakeholders. By understanding not only the meaning of the output(s) generated by each framework, but also the value of each framework to each stakeholder, pharma has an opportunity to selectively utilize these fledging frameworks to shape clinical and commercial development in oncology.