A number of new rubrics purport to rank repositories against each other, as if to file them into a neat line from most to least successful. What are these rubrics actually measuring, though, and do they reflect how the institutional repository (IR) community measures its own success? With nearly 400 repositories as a sample group, we looked at how the IR community typically measures progress and compared that with three different ranking systems to see how they matched up. The results suggest that we need a new, platform-agnostic framework that allows institutions to measure themselves against their own unique missions and goals. In this presentation, we propose a model that moves beyond one-size-fits-all ranking and instead focuses on benchmarking.