The three commentaries to our paper provide some interesting complementarities to our arguments and we would like to thank the authors for taking the time to read and comment on our work. Although coming from quite different perspectives, Mike Batty as an urban modeller and planner and Matt Wilson as a critical geographical information system (GIS) theorist, largely support our concerns around urban indicator and dashboard projects: that they have certain technical and epistemological shortcomings and are often used to support particular interests. Whilst Batty cautions as to how indicators and dashboard might be used, reframed technically and supplemented by more sophisticated modelling, Wilson is more concerned with how such projects are framed socially and economically as tools of capital accumulation. Neither provide analysis with which we particularly disagree. In contrast, Meg Holden and Sara Moreno Pires, while they recognize many of the issues we discuss, provide a critique of our analysis and a defence of indicator and dashboards as presently conceived and practised. Their commentary demonstrates to us how those who have vested a lot of time and effort into indicator and dashboard projects might misread and react to our argument, defending such projects without fully grasping our critique and the alternative epistemology we forwarded, or our own position within the indicator and dashboard landscape. The rest of this response, therefore, concentrates on their commentary.