Decision-making in urologic oncology involves integrating multiple clinical data to provide an answer to the needs of a single patient. Although the practice of medicine has always been an “art” involving experience, clinical data, scientific evidence and judgment, the creation of specialties and subspecialties has multiplied the challenges faced every day by physicians. In the last decades, with the field of urologic oncology becoming more and more complex, there has been a rise in tools capable of compounding several pieces of information and supporting clinical judgment and experience when approaching a difficult decision. The vast majority of these tools provide a risk of a certain event based on various information integrated in a mathematical model. Specifically, most decision-making tools in the field of urologic focus on the preoperative or postoperative phase and provide a prognostic or predictive risk assessment based on the available clinical and pathological data. More recently, imaging and genomic features started to be incorporated in these models in order to improve their accuracy. Genomic classifiers, look-up tables, regression trees, risk-stratification tools and nomograms are all examples of this effort. Nomograms are by far the most frequently used in clinical practice, but are also among the most controversial of these tools. This critical, narrative review will focus on the use, diffusion and limitations of nomograms in the field of urologic oncology.