accounting, as it is currently practiced, has lost much of its ability to inform as businesses have become more and more knowledge intensive. intangible assets are now variously estimated to currently constitute 60-75 percent of corporate value, on average (lev, 2002). research to date has yet to conclude how best to measure this intellectual capital (brennan & connell, 2000). current debates about intellectual capital are part of the search for a methodology to measure the knowledge base of a firm (power, 2001). this is critical since a failure to properly conceptualize the nature and value of knowledge assets condemns firms and whole economies to fight competitive battles with outdated weapons and tactics (boisot, 1998). the purpose of this paper is to present a comparative evaluation of some of the most commonly known intellectual capital (ic) models. given the recent proliferation of ic models, it is fitting to classify the models and review their individual strengths and weaknesses. the models to be evaluated include stern stewart’s market value added (mva) and economic value added (eva™), tobin’s q ratio, norton and kaplan’s balanced score card, skandia’s ic navigator, intellectual capital services’ icindex ™, the technology broker’s ic audit, sveiby’s intangible asset monitor (iam), citation-weighted patents, and real option theory. dimensions of model classification will include