The US Army Ground Vehicle Programs use various drive cycles for testing and validation of new vehicle systems and models. These cycles have traditionally been characterized by run speed, number of stops, and terrain profile. For the sake of powertrain analysis, there have been a number of additional metrics proposed for characterization of such drive cycles in the context of fuel economy evaluation. This paper examines several metrics related to fuel economy, comparing standard Army test circuits, simulated drive cycles, and commercially standardized drive cycles. By comparing these cycles and identifying key metrics, we can develop better testing plans and bench cycles for technology evaluation. Field data from a mountainous region shows substantial variability that is not fully captured by current test cycles. Kinetic intensity is able to differentiate between the human in the loop scenarios, with values higher in simulated cycles than in field data. However, number of stops remains an important criteria for characterizing drive cycles