International large-scale student assessments (ILSAs) in education represent a valuable source of information for policy-makers, not only on student achievements, but also on their relationship with different contextual factors. The results are partly described in the official studies' reports; more can be derived from the publicly released data sets. However, league tables are often the only evidence used in policy debates and decisions on education. Indeed, the comparison of student achievement across the participating educational systems is a legitimate proxy for estimating countries' development and productivity, but the use of league tables more often turns into 'horse-ranking', ignoring the contexts of teaching and learning. This is often supported by the media, turning the use of results into their abuse. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the use and misuse of league tables in reporting ILSA results, vs. the use of data for in-depth analysis in order to make informed decisions.