This study considered three selection indices to choose institutional peers: (a) proximity, (b) percentile, and (c) normative. Although conceptually similar, only the proximity selection index had been previously studied. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, the procedures used to generate the peer sets for each selection index are provided. Second, an empirical investigation was conducted to compare the institutional peers chosen by each selection index using those procedures. Third, the stability of peer selection over time was also ascertained from that enquiry. Compiled separately from two data sets extracted three years apart, the three selection indices under investigation yielded remarkably different sets of peers. Fewer than half of the institutions used in this study were identified as peers at both points of time. Additional analyses revealed that the underlying distributions of the characteristics used to select peers might be just as influential as the characteristics themselves. The results did not produce sufficient evidence to endorse any one of the selection indices, but instead suggest that a combination of selection indices might be superior to any one selection index alone. [This paper is an update to "A Case Study to Examine Peer Grouping and Aspirant Selection. Professional File. Article 132, Fall 2013" (ED573093). For the other three articles in the Summer 2017 issue, see ED594959, ED594956, and ED594958.]