This paper examines the usefulness of the duration measure as a secondary ranking criterion in the capital budgeting decision environment. The potential value of the duration measure in this context is called into question through a performance comparison with other popular ranking criteria such as payback period and internal rate of return. The results of this study support the conclusion that useful information contained in the duration measure is effectively captured by the more traditional ranking criteria, and therefore inclusion of this more complex measure in the capital budget selection process is probably inefficient and unnecessary.