Much has changed since the introduction of surgical valve repair in the 1950s, from the introduction bioprosthetic valves to percutaneous approaches to valve repair. Yet, despite substantial advancements in bioprosthetic valve technology, there has been a lack of direct, independent comparison between bioprosthetic mitral valve devices, accompanied by a marked heterogeneity in approaches to the sizing and selection thereof. Wang et al. have hence endeavoured to evaluate, head-to-head, the technical successes and biomechanical outcomes associated with three different bioprosthetic mitral valves (Epic, Abbott, IL; Mosaic, Medtronic, MN; Mitris Resilia, Edwards Lifesciences, CA) in a porcine model, under standardised haemodynamic and anatomical conditions. With a robust experimental technique, they have made clear the heterogeneity in both sizing and biomechanical properties between bioprosthetic mitral valves, and have further emphasised the need for a uniform approach to the manufacturing and sizing of bioprosthetic valves.