The claim that humans adapt their actions in ways that avoid effortful processing (whether cognitive or physical) is a staple of various theories of human behavior. Though much work has been done focusing on the determinants of such behaviors, relatively less attention has been given to how individuals evaluate effort. In the current set of experiments we utilized the General Evaluability Theory (GET; Hsee & Zhang, 2010) to examine the evaluability of effort by examining subjective value functions across different evaluation modes. Individuals judged the anticipated effort of four task-specific efforts indexed by stimulus rotation, items to-be-remembered, weight to-be-lifted, and stimulus degradation across joint (i.e., judged comparatively) and single evaluation modes (i.e., judged in isolation). GET hypothesizes that highly evaluable attributes should be consistently evaluated (i.e., demonstrate similar subjective value functions) between the two modes. Across six experiments we demonstrate that the perceived effort associated with items to-be-remembered, weight to-be-lifted, and stimulus degradation can be considered relatively evaluable, while the effort associated with stimulus rotation may be relatively inevaluable. Results are discussed within the context of subjective evaluation, internal reference information, and strategy selection. In addition, methodological implications of evaluation modes are considered.