AbstractModels suggest that the mechanism of competition can influence the growth advantage associated with being large (in absolute body size or relative to other individuals in the population). Large size is advantageous under interference, but disadvantageous under exploitative competition. We addressed this prediction in a laboratory experiment on Rana temporaria tadpoles competing for limited food. There were 166 target individuals spanning a 10‐fold range in body mass reared for 3 days with three other individuals that were either the same size, half as large, or twice as large as the target. Relative growth rate (proportion per day) declined with size, and absolute growth rate (mass per day) reached a peak at intermediate size and declined thereafter. Tadpoles grew slowly if they were large relative to their competitors, although relative body size was less important than absolute size. As a result, size variation declined in groups that were initially composed of individuals of variable size. Thus, bigger was not better under exploitative competition. Our results help connect individual‐level behavior with individual growth and the size distribution of the population.