Changes to hyperparameters can have a dramatic effect on model accuracy. Thus, the tuning of hyperparameters plays an important role in optimizing machine-learning models. An integral part of the hyperparameter-tuning process is the evaluation of model checkpoints, which is done through the use of "validators". In a supervised setting, these validators evaluate checkpoints by computing accuracy on a validation set that has labels. In contrast, in an unsupervised setting, the validation set has no such labels. Without any labels, it is impossible to compute accuracy, so validators must estimate accuracy instead. But what is the best approach to estimating accuracy? In this paper, we consider this question in the context of unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA). Specifically, we propose three new validators, and we compare and rank them against five other existing validators, on a large dataset of 1,000,000 checkpoints. Extensive experimental results show that two of our proposed validators achieve state-of-the-art performance in various settings. Finally, we find that in many cases, the state-of-the-art is obtained by a simple baseline method. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest empirical study of UDA validators to date. Code is available at this https URL.