Background: The adoption of extended criteria for donors remains the best strategy to widen the pool of available liver graft against the chronic shortage of donors. Benchmarking in liver transplantation (LT) offers the unprecedented opportunity to compare clinical outcome measures to a set of validated reference values. We aimed to evaluate the impact of marginal grafts usage in a cohort of low-risk benchmark cases from an area with a very low rate of deceased donation. Methods: A cohort of low-risk benchmark cases was identified from all adult patients who underwent LT at our center. Among these patients, those transplanted with a graft from an extended-criteria donor (ECD) were identified. Benchmark metrics (length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, incidences of mortality, graft loss, and postoperative complication) were compared with benchmark cutoffs and between the 2 groups. Results: Two hundred forty-five patients satisfied the inclusion criteria, 146 (60%) of whom received an organ from an ECD. Overall, all benchmark metrics where within the cutoffs limits, except for graft loss (14% vs 11%) and mortality (10% vs 9% 1 year after LT). The ECD group was associated with more grade III complications (60% vs 45%, P = .031), graft loss (18% vs 8%, P = .038), and mortality (14% vs 4%, P = .009). Hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis was found to be associated with less mortality (odds ratio = 0.42, P = .048). Conclusion: While ECD graft usage is associated with slightly worse prognosis, our experience suggests that their use can be considered safe, especially when matched on hepatocellular carcinoma recipients.