Data from recent studies employing concurrent variable-interval schedules are reviewed. Subject species employed in different experiments have included rats, pigeons, and humans, and reinforcers have varied from food and shock avoidance to points exchangeable for money. Undermatching (a greater preference for the schedule of the concurrent pair that delivers the lower rate of reinforcement than the Matching Law predicts) has been preponderant in recent studies, irrespective of whether behavior has been measured in terms of response ratios or time allocation, with the possible exception of data produced by human subjects. Little difference in the degree of undermatching exhibited by response and time measures has been found, except in the results from a single laboratory, in which time-allocation measures have tended to undermatch less than response measures. Procedural features, such as type of manipulandum used and changeover delay, seem to have little effect on the degree of undermatching exhibited, but asymmetrical response manipulanda (such as lever and key) for the different concurrent schedules, or other asymmetries in the experimental situation, show up clearly in bias measures, in a manner consistent with previous analyses.