This study compares Value-at-Risk (VaR) measures for Australian banks over a period that includes the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) to determine whether the methodology and parameter selection are important for capital adequacy holdings that will ultimately support a bank in a crisis period. VaR methodology promoted under Basel II was largely criticised during the GFC for its failure to capture downside risk. However, results from this study indicate that 1-year parametric and historical models produce better measures of VaR than models with longer time frames. VaR estimates produced using Monte Carlo simulations show a high percentage of violations but with lower average magnitude of a violation when they occur. VaR estimates produced by the ARMA GARCH model also show a relatively high percentage of violations, however, the average magnitude of a violation is quite low. Our findings support the design of the revised Basel II VaR methodology which has also been adopted under Basel III.