Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the deadline model for speed-accuracy tradeoffs. According to the deadline model, participants in speeded-response tasks terminate stimulus discrimination as soon as it has run to completion or as soon as a predetermined time deadline has arrived, whichever comes first. Speed is traded for accuracy by varying the time deadlines; short deadlines yield fast but sometimes inaccurate responses, whereas long deadlines allow for slow, accurate responses. A new prediction of this model, based on a comparison of reaction time distributions, was derived and tested in experiments involving the joint manipulation of speed stress and stimulus discriminability. Clear violations of this prediction were observed when participants made relative brightness judgments (Experiment 1) and when they made lexical decisions (Experiment 2), rejecting both the deadline model and the fast-guess model. Several alternative models for speed-accuracy tradeoffs, including random-walk and accumulator models, are compatible with the results.