By way of rejoinder to the commentaries on our intervention by a selection of urban scholars, we expand the discussion on the nature of scholarly engagement with comparative city benchmarking and the practitioners and interests that underpin it beyond academia. While the short‐termist, competitive and data‐driven assumptions that suffuse benchmarking activity warrant clear and well‐informed criticism, we argue that there is a place for critical and self‐reflexive scholarly engagement with benchmarking practices. We respond to the responses by stressing that this position has the potential to improve the value of benchmarks as one of the many tools with which to pursue a more equitable global urbanism.