I find it a useful metric, and here is why. In my opinion, the value of a lease is generally proportional to the MSRP of the vehicle. In other words, I generally think a lease that costs $x/mo on a $y car is roughly as good a deal as a 2$x/mo lease on a $2y car. If you don’t think that lease price and MSRP are related in this way, then the leasehackr metric is not useful for you.
Most of the criticisms about leasehackr scoring and other metrics that I have seen are that they can’t be used to measure absolute value. In other words, you can’t make blanket statements that a leasehackr score above 7 is a good deal. As one example, brand XYZ may not lease well, so a low leasehackr score deal for brand XYZ might be “better” (more rare) than a higher leasehackr score deal for some other brand that does lease well. In this scenario, we are typically searching for a deal on one particular model of car. In other words, we don’t just care about the MSRP of the car, so the leasehackr score is not that helpful.
If you don’t care about brands and you just let MSRP represent the value of a lease, then the leasehackr score is a decent metric for “a good lease”. This is exactly what I am trying to do with the Edmunds data. Take a boatload of lease information and find cars that are “leasing well”.
I don’t think the leasehackr score is all encompassing, but if you think lease pricing should be considered relative to MSRP, then I argue it has some value.