Can an action be difficult beyond compare?

Abstract In this paper, I consider three accounts of what makes an action difficult stemming from recent literature on the value of achievements. On one view, an action is difficult insofar as its successful performance involves effort; on another, insofar as the probability that the agent will fail is high; and, on my preferred view, insofar as the ratio of comparable agents able to perform the same action in the same circumstance from among all comparable agents is low. I raise new objections to each view and defend a new version of the third. The view I defend provides a unified explanation of the widest range of uses of the concept of difficulty and captures an intuitive connection between difficulty and agentive ability. One upshot of my discussion is that none of the existing accounts of achievement-value are defensible without modification.