This paper examines whether general intelligence (g) factors derived from different test batteries are equivalent. There are three views regarding the equivalency of g-factors: (1) "indicator indifference" claims that test content is irrelevant as long as g loadings are identical and that single tests can be adequate indicators of g; (2) "complete dependence on test composition" claims that general factors are completely dependent on the tests from which they are extracted; and (3) an intermediate stance that emphasizes the importance of the diversity and comprehensiveness of cognitive test batteries from which g is obtained. The present study evaluates these competing views by analyzing g-factor correlations across all combinatorically possible combinations of subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities V. Results showed strong correlations among g-factors across both one-factor and hierarchical models, increasing with the number of subtests or broad abilities included. Most g-factors closely matched the g-estimate obtained from all available subtests (r > 0.9). Low correlations were mainly tied to the overrepresentation of processing speed (Gs) in small test sets, highlighting the impact of content coverage. Overall, results support the intermediate view: reliable g-estimates require broad, balanced batteries covering at least three broad abilities.