Abstract Variation in gene tree estimates is widely observed in empirical phylogenomic data and is often assumed to be the result of biological processes. However, a recent study using tetrapod mitochondrial genomes to control for biological sources of variation due to their haploid, uniparentally inherited, and non-recombining nature found that levels of discordance among mitochondrial gene trees were comparable to those found in studies that assume only biological sources of variation. Additionally, they found that several of the models of sequence evolution chosen to infer gene trees were doing an inadequate job of fitting the sequence data. These results indicated that significant amounts of gene tree discordance in empirical data may be due to poor fit of sequence evolution models and that more complex and biologically realistic models may be needed. To test how the fit of sequence evolution models relates to gene tree discordance, we analyzed the same mitochondrial data sets as the previous study using 2 additional, more complex models of sequence evolution that each include a different biologically realistic aspect of the evolutionary process: A covarion model to incorporate site-specific rate variation across lineages (heterotachy), and a partitioned model to incorporate variable evolutionary patterns by codon position. Our results show that both additional models fit the data better than the models used in the previous study, with the covarion being consistently and strongly preferred as tree size increases. However, even these more preferred models still inferred highly discordant mitochondrial gene trees, thus deepening the mystery around what we label the “Mito-Phylo Paradox” and leading us to ask whether the observed variation could, in fact, be biological in nature after all.