Recent trends in higher education have increased interest in improving accountability in U.S. higher education beyond current accreditation practices. Many proposed solutions include using quantitative-performance measures like graduation and default rates to assess performance, but questions remain about how such a system could fit-in with existing accreditation efforts. Using a unique dataset of accreditation actions, we examine the relationship between outcomes of the current accreditation system with those of a hypothetical quantitative evaluation system. We find that schools facing accreditation sanctions are, on average, low-performing on the quantitative outcomes. However, using prior accreditation actions to set quantitative-performance benchmarks results in a substantial portion of the higher education sector being implicated. These results suggest that quantitative-performance systems and qualitative accreditation efforts assess distinct, complementary types of institutional quality. We conclude with a consideration of how the two might be used together and a discussion of concerns about data and equity.