Value-added scores from tests of college learning indicate how score gains compare to those expected from students of similar entering academic ability. Unfortunately, the choice of value-added model can impact results, and this makes it difficult to determine which results to trust. The research presented here demonstrates how value-added models can be compared on three criteria: reliability, year-to-year consistency and information about score precision. To illustrate, the original Collegiate Learning Assessment value-added model is compared to a new model that employs hierarchical linear modelling. Results indicate that scores produced by the two models are similar, but the new model produces scores that are more reliable and more consistent across years. Furthermore, the new approach provides school-specific indicators of value-added score precision. Although the reliability of value-added scores is sufficient to inform discussions about improving general education programmes, reliability is currently inadequate for making dependable, high-stakes comparisons between postsecondary institutions. (Contains 2 tables and 3 figures.)