While the need to strengthen disaster and climate change resilience is a core pillar of the different global frameworks that together make the Post-2015 Agendas, the coherent implementation and progress monitoring of resilience goals across the Agendas' main frameworks remains a challenge for policy and practice. A more coherent implementation is therefore increasingly being promoted across the Sendai Framework of Disaster Risk Reduction, the Paris Agreement’s Adaptation Goal, the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda. However, little is known about the actual types and magnitudes of the costs of incoherence – or the potential benefits that some degree of incoherence might provide. To contribute to closing this knowledge gap, a study was carried out to assess the costs and the benefits of (not) implementing the different frameworks in a coherent way, with a specific focus on disaster risk reduction. The study draws on a comprehensive literature review followed by an in-depth empirical analysis of two case studies: Mexico and the Philippines. The results of this study show that incoherence implies different types of costs, many of which are not typically on the agenda of policymakers. They also challenge the implicit notion that there are only upsides to policy coherence and downsides to incoherence. The interviews and focus group discussions with public servants in the two case study countries yield a rich typology of costs but also benefits of both coherence and incoherence – a typology more nuanced than what can be found in relevant literature thus far. The study shows that transitioning to increased vertical and horizontal coherence among the Post-2015 Agendas cannot overlook some of the underlying drivers of incoherence. These drivers act as hindrances to the achievement of coherent policy planning, implementation and reporting. Moreover, as they are ingrained in the political and organizational culture, they may lead to a lack of awareness regarding the importance of coherence, reducing efforts and commitments to pursue it. The document provides key insights from comparing the literature review with the case studies, and outlines ways forward that emerge from the country cases themselves, but that may be applicable beyond the specificities of these. The conclusions and outlook provide critical reflection on realistic approaches to policy coherence given competing incentives and motivations and open up the debate to further advance this topic by identifying some existing policy and research gaps.