PurposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the classification of the equity mutual fund depends on the performance measure used.Design/methodology/approachThe sample for this study includes stock mutual funds for the USA, Europe and emerging market economies covering the period 2010 to 2020. Using more than 20 performance measures the results are compared using the Sharpe ratio as the reference.FindingsThe results show that performance measures based on absolute reward–risk ratios like Sortino, Treynor, etc. have similar rankings, because in general the numerator (mean excess return) is the same. However, when the authors employ other types of performance measures, results may be significantly different, especially in the case of metrics for “incremental returns”, i.e. alphas. Focussing on markets, their results show that choosing performance measures is more relevant for emerging markets.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample is only limited to the USA, Europe and the emerging market, and there are other performance metrics in the literature which have not been covered in this work.Practical implicationsThe ordering of equity mutual funds depends on the measure used, specially if investors employ factor models to measure excess returns (alphas). Hence, policy formulation on disclosure of mutual fund performance should encourage the use of several metrics from different families. Investors must be aware of the different rankings made and the most appropriate metrics based on their preferences.Originality/valueThis paper focusses specifically on the effect that performance metrics have on relative fund performance. Previous studies have ignored alpha metrics to rank funds, which are commonly employed by investors. The authors’ study performs an analysis for three different markets considering the two main developed ones (the American and European equity markets), as well as the emerging one, largely ignored until now.