It is generally recognized that prevalence rates of violence are very sensitive to methodological issues (wording of questions, translation, interviewer training) and context (stigma, confidentiality, fear for more violence, levels of awareness and possibilities for support, etc.). This makes trends in prevalence rates hard to interpret, and monitoring change challenging. This paper provides strong arguments for the use of an alternative indicator instead of (or in addition to) the current SDG indicator 5.2.1. The ratio of the prevalence of IPV in last 12-months over lifetime appears to be more robust and nuanced for measuring change and evaluating the impact of prevention measures.