This paper provides a comparison of four different seismic performance metrics which relate to the determination of design seismic demands from seismic response history analyses. The considered metrics include those implemented in New Zealand and international codes of practice, as well as emerging metrics which are well established in related research and state-of-the-art practice, but have yet to find their way into conventional guidelines. The metrics are directly compared and contrasted based on a central example. It is illustrated that the use of the “maximum demand” metric in the NZ loadings standard, and the “mean demand” in international codes of practice are notably conservative and unconservative, respectively. Either of the two emerging metrics provide a significant improvement, and given that they require the same information from an analyst’s perspective, are recommended as replacements.