The choice of the most appropriate indicator to use to compare leakage performance between companies or zones has been the focus of much research and study. The IWA Water Loss Task Force made recommendations (Lambert, 2000) about standardising the terminology and the water balance and then went on to show the short comings of some performance measures. It introduced the concept of the unavoidable level of losses and the Infrastructure Leakage Index. The Water Loss Task Force reviewed the recommendations on key performance indicators in 2007 (Liemberger R, 2007), A recent project in the UK (Watershed, 2011) to update the original Managing Leakage (WRc, 1994) has also reviewed this previous work. This review highlighted a number of new approaches and in particular the Frontier approach. The work reported here has looked at a number of key indicators and applied them to leakage performance within 33 zones ranging from 7000 to 400,000 properties within a large operating company in the UK. The intention of the study was to compare the results from using the different indicators and to investigate whether the Frontier approach had any advantages over other indicators. In addition the use of the Frontier method to benchmark performance and set internal targets at zone level has been investigated.