What percentage of Daubert challenges succeed?

Against financial experts — the most-studied category — 46% of Daubert challenges succeeded across more than 1,500 published opinions over 14 years (PwC), and roughly a third of challenged experts were at least partially excluded in recent years.

Which expert disciplines face the highest Daubert exclusion rates?

Within the financial category: appraisers ~38%, accountants ~32%, and economists ~27%. The leading cause across disciplines is lack of reliability — accepted methods applied unreliably — followed by relevance and qualifications.

What is the most common reason expert testimony is excluded?

Reliability. Exclusion is rarely about credentials alone; it is about whether the method was applied reliably to the facts — precisely the connection amended Rule 702 (effective Dec 1, 2023) now makes an explicit threshold requirement.

Rule 702 hub · Data brief · Updated July 2026

Daubert by the Numbers: Expert Exclusion Rates by Discipline

By SwornIn · Data: PwC Daubert Challenges Study (1,500+ published opinions since 2000) · Figures approximate; informational only — not legal advice.

46%

of Daubert challenges against financial experts succeed

~33%

of challenged experts at least partially excluded (2022)

cause of exclusion: reliability — not credentials

Exclusion risk by discipline

Appraisers

~38%

Accountants

~32%

Economists

~27%

The spread matters: an appraiser's opinion faces roughly 40% more exclusion risk than an economist's. If your damages case rests on a valuation, the expert's reliability record isn't a nice-to-have — it's the load-bearing wall.

Why experts actually get excluded

Reliability leads. The most frequent driver is the misuse of otherwise accepted methods — models untethered from facts, assumptions adopted rather than derived, causation asserted rather than analyzed.
Relevance follows. Opinions that don't "fit" the case's actual questions.
Qualifications trail. Credentials alone rarely decide challenges — but practice-scope drift (opining beyond what the expert actually does) still loses them.

The amendment that raised the stakes

These numbers predate the December 2023 amendment to Rule 702 — which made the proponent's burden explicit (preponderance of the evidence) and elevated "reliable application to the facts" into the rule's text. Courts now have textual instruction to do exactly the gatekeeping that produced these exclusion rates, more actively. The era of "it goes to weight" is over. (Full analysis: the 2023 amendment, explained.)

What to do with these numbers

Price reliability into selection. An expert 20% cheaper with an exclusion history is the most expensive expert you can hire — see what experts cost in 2026.
Check the record before engaging — prior exclusions and qualification fights are in the public record, and so are your judge's tendencies.
Pressure-test your own expert first. The other side will run these numbers too.

Reliability, quantified — before you engage

Every SwornIn expert carries a transparent Expert Reliability Index, visible Daubert history, and verified credentials. Founding firms get 2 months free.

See scored experts → Full 2026 report