Purpose The purpose of this paper is to perform a comparative analysis between the productivity metrics recommended in the literature and those that companies in the knowledge-intensive services sector use in practice. Design/methodology/approach To collect information, a systematic review of the literature was used, to apply virtual surveys and interviews among managers of different companies representing the sector. For data analysis, categorical optimal scales, homogeneity tests, tetrachoric correlation matrices, word clouds and association coefficients for dichotomous variables were used. Findings There are association patterns between the metrics used and the nature of the work performed. Despite the heterogeneity observed in the productivity metrics, categorization guidelines related to the traditional, human resources and customer-oriented approaches emerge. Practical implications Possible neglects using metrics aimed at valuing the intellectual capital immersed in human resources are evident, particularly in the follow-up to autonomy, knowledge management, human capital, teamwork, training and capacity building metrics, among others. Conversely, face-to-face monitoring metrics, such as absenteeism, are overvaluation. Originality/value The approaches and metrics discussed and the results obtained, provide information so that knowledge-intensive companies have a reference framework to identify and select useful metrics to assess the work carried out by their workforce.