A reward point has no fixed value. What it is worth depends on how it is redeemed, and the difference between the best and worst options within one programme can be considerable.
Redemption options are priced separately
Programmes set their own conversion rate for each redemption route, so points spent on merchandise, statement credit, gift cards or travel each carry a different effective value.
These rates are decided by the programme rather than by any external market, and they can be changed at any time.
The rate is rarely displayed as a rate, which makes comparing options require arithmetic the interface does not perform. Dividing the cash value of a redemption by the points it consumes is the only way to see the figure directly.
Convenience and value move in opposite directions
The easiest redemptions, such as applying points to a statement or spending them at a checkout, generally return the least per point.
The routes returning most usually involve transferring to a partner programme, finding availability and booking within constraints.
Programmes rely on most members choosing convenience, which is what allows the headline earning rate to look generous while the average redemption is modest.
Transfer partners create the wide range
Flexible programmes allow points to move into airline or hotel schemes, where value depends on what the partner charges for a given booking.
Because partner pricing varies enormously by route, date and availability, the same transfer can be excellent or poor depending on what it is used for.
Transfers are usually irreversible, so the decision to move points should follow the identification of a specific booking rather than precede it.
Programmes change the rates unilaterally
Award charts and transfer ratios are adjusted periodically, and the adjustments are generally unfavourable to existing balances.
This makes points a depreciating holding rather than a store of value, since nothing guarantees today's redemption rate will exist next year.
The practical consequence is that large balances carry risk, and earning toward a specific goal is safer than accumulating indefinitely.
Comparing programmes honestly
Comparing earning rates alone is meaningless without knowing the value of the points earned, since a higher rate in weaker points can be worth less.
Working out the value of the redemption you would realistically use converts every programme to a common measure.
For most people that is the simple route rather than the optimised one, and comparing on that basis produces a more honest ranking than any headline rate.