Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) is a newer psychotherapy that has generated much clinical and research interest in recent years. However, the approach has begun to receive strong criticism from proponents of traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Hofmann and Asmundson (2008) recently compared and contrasted ACT and traditional CBT. They concluded that ACT's criticisms of traditional CBT are inaccurate; both ACT and CBT can be understood using a similar theoretical model; and there is no evidence that ACT represents a "third wave" of behavior therapy, as is sometimes claimed by its proponents. In the current article, I further analyze Hofmann and Asmundson's critique of ACT to determine its evidential merit and to attempt to clarify potential points of misunderstanding between CBT and ACT proponents. (Contains 1 footnote.)