It is clear that many sources of evidence have contributed to our grasp of what does and does not work in HIV/AIDS education. Despite this, there has recently been a distinct move to narrow the evidence of success in this field to experimental and comparative work, with randomized controlled trials positioned as the 'gold standard'. Here we take up the question of what constitutes evidence in HIV/AIDS education. We explore the social and historical factors which 'privilege' certain kinds of evidence above others and question whether there exists but one way of understanding what works best in HIV/AIDS education. We draw expressly upon earlier insights and experience in educational evaluation per se and put a case that evidence gleaned through a range of research methods is more useful than exclusive reliance on experimental and comparative work.