This paper focuses on methodological issues in applying equipercentile equating methods to pairs of tests that do not meet the assumptions of equating. This situation is referred to as a concordance situation, as opposed to an equating situation, and the end result is a concordance table that gives "comparable" scores between the tests. Interpretation of results is more ambiguous for a concordance situation than an equating situation, due to weaker assumptions, so that inappropriate use of results may be a problem. Examples are presented of specific issues that arose in applying equipercentile methods to create concordance tables between American College Test (ACT) composite and Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) verbal plus mathematics scores for both a large group of 14 institutions and 2 states and individual institutions within that pooled group. Issues include data collection and cleaning, applying the equipercentile method, choosing smoothing methods, computing concordance standard errors, and adjusting for sample size. The examples illustrate that it cannot be assumed that procedures that are appropriate for an equating situation are also appropriate for a concordance situation. Each pair of tests to be linked must be considered a unique situation. (Contains 5 tables, 9 figures, and 16 references.) (SLD)