Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) are frequently used to prescribe exercise intensity. A central assumption of using RPE scales is that the subjective perception of effort maps onto objective performance in a consistent way. However, the degree and shape of how RPE aligns with objective performance is not fully understood. Here we investigate that degree and shape of alignment, as well as how time (i.e., how often has an effort to be performed) and mental effort (i.e., if one has to invest mental effort as well as physical effort) covary with the alignment. In a randomized within-subjects experiment, we used a grip-to-scale method that asked participants (N= 43) to repeatedly squeeze a handgrip transducer with four to-be-produced RPE target levels relative to their maximum strength (representing 20%, 40%, 60% or 80%). Across all levels, participants applied less force than the equivalent fraction of their maximum voluntary contraction strength, and RPE and the resulting objective force were not linearly aligned. In addition, at constant RPE-levels, participants produced less force over time and this effect was moderated by the to-be-produced RPE-levels. Lastly, anticipating mental effort after the physical effort altered the alignment as a function of the to-be-produced RPE-level and experimental duration. Taken together, our results indicate that perceived effort and objective performance do not straightforwardly map onto one another, and several factors can affect the degree and shape of how RPE and performance align. These findings have implications for scientific and applied contexts were RPE is used to prescribe exercise intensity.